RAKESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NAGAR Panchayat, Balrampur/ respondent No. 3 published a notice inviting tenders on 18.3.2011 (Annexure -P/2). Tenders were invited for giving on contract paryavaran avam niryat kar naka, Balrampur for collection of taxes for a period of one year commencing from 01.4.2011 to 31.03.2012. It was directed and disclosed that the closed envelops containing bids should reach to the office of respondent No. 3 on or before 25.03.2011 till 4.00 pm. and the envelops would be opened on the same day at 5.00 p.m.

(2.) THE petitioner was one of the aspirant and when he visited the office of respondent No. 3 on 24.03.2011, it was informed that the tender process is going to be cancelled, therefore, he did not send his closed envelop as per NIT dated 18.01.2011. Later on, by a notification dated 25.03.2011 issued by the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Balrampur (Annexure -P/3), it was informed that the subject tender process which was to be finalized on 25.03.2011 has been stayed on account of some reason. Copy of the notification has been filed as (Annexure- P/3). The said notification reads as under: -

(3.) MR . Bhupendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the above action on the part of respondent No. 3 is arbitrary and malafide. Even after notifying that the tender process has been stayed, closed envelopes were opened on 25.03.2011, and work was illegally awarded to respondent No. 4. He also argued that note sheets of Respondent No. 3 would show that no reasons have been assigned to supercede the notification dated 25.03.2011 and the envelops were opened as if no such notification was issued by respondent No. 3. He furnished copies of applications filed by the aspirant tenderers, which show that all the applications were dispatched through post office on 25.03.2011 and were received by the office of respondent No. 3 on 25.03.2011, which according to him appears to be managed and unreasonable, because, the dak sent through speed post would hardly reach even to a local place on the same date. His submission is that even the hand writing of the applications are same which shows that respondents 3 & 4 joined their hands in glove and the impugned work was illegally awarded in favour of respondent No. 4.