ROSHAN GUPTA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant petition, the Petitioner has challenged the action of the Respondents/State in dis-approving/rejecting his tender on the ground that at the time when the tender was submitted by him, his wife was a Councillor in Nagar Panchayat Sitapur, District Surguja. The Petitioner has sought quashing of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 20.2.2016.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Respondent No.3, the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Sitapur issued an NIT for carrying out of number of works. The Petitioner submitted his tender for the works prescribed at Serial No.1 to 7 and 20 of the NIT. It appears that thereafter a notification was issued by the State Election Commission for holding elections in Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats and consequently, the model code of conduct came into force and as a result thereof tenders were not opened and kept in abeyance. Thereafter, in view of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No.48 of 2014, the State Election Commission stayed the election programme. Thereafter, Respondent No.3 proceeded to finalise the tender process and the tenders were opened on 21.11.2014. The tender of the Petitioner was approved by the Tender Committee of the Nagar Panchayat Sitapur for items mentioned at Serial No.1 to 5 and 18. The Tender Committee forwarded the same for approval to Respondent No.2, the Executive Engineer, Urban Administration and Development Department, Regional Office Ambikapur, District Surguja.

(3.) In the meantime, the State Election Commission issued a fresh notification and election programme for the said elections and again a model code of conduct came into force. As a result thereof, the tender process was again halted. The election process completed in January, 2015. Thereafter, on 23.11.2015, Respondent No.3 initiated steps to finalise the tender and wrote a letter to Respondent No.2, the Executive Engineer requesting him to approve the recommendation of the Tender Committee. It appears that Respondent No.2, the Executive Engineer raised some queries and in response to the queries, Respondent No.3 submitted that the wife of the Petitioner was a Councillor in Nagar Panchayat Sitapur before the election process was completed, i.e., she was a Councillor at the time when the NIT was issued, the tender was submitted and even at the time when the tender of the Petitioner was approved by the Tender Committee. After this response, tenders were allotted to all the other successful bidders for other works except for the works mentioned at Serial No.1 to 5 and 18 for which works the most successful bidder was the Petitioner and the tender of the Petitioner was cancelled on the ground that since the wife of the Petitioner was a Councillor in the Nagar Panchayat, he could not be awarded the contract. A tender for the said works has again been re-floated and, therefore, this writ petition.