M/S Ramsharan Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 679 of 2020 • M/s Ramsharan Singh Through- The Partner Ramsharan Singh Bhadoriya S/o Late Shri Raj Bahadur Singh, 65 Yrs R/o House No. 56, Shanti Nagar, Sukma, District- Sukma, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. The Engineer-In-Chief Public Works Department , North Block Sector 19, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. The Chief Engineer Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency, Vikas Bhawan Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. The Superintending Engineer Project Circle No. 1 Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency, District Bastar Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :
Shri Prafull N. Bharat and Shri Vivek Shrivastava, Advocates For Respondent/State :
Shri Gagan Tiwari, Deputy Government Advocate For Intervenor :
Shri Avinash K. Mishra, Advocate ___________________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board P. R. Ramachandra Menon, CJ.
25.02.2020 1.
The Petitioner has moved this Court with the following prayers : "10.1.To call for the records of the case for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
10.2. To issue an appropriate writ or order and declare that the omission on the part of respondent no.3 & 4 of not correcting the status of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, bad in law and without jurisdiction.
10.3. To issue an appropriate writ or order and declare that the omission on the part of respondent no.3 & 4 to immediately correct the status of the petitioner and further permit the petitioner to participate in the tender No.59501 and other tenders in which the petitioner had participated but not permitted.
10.4. Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted." 2.
When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 20.02.2020, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner pointed out that though the debarring of the name of Petitioner has been set aside, the website of the 3rd Respondent still paints the Petitioner as a tainted figure; by virtue of which, he is not in a position to participate in the bids and hence the grievance projected in writ petition. 3.
The learned counsel representing the Respondents/State submits that the interference made earlier, was without prejudice to the right of the Respondents to deal with the merits in accordance with law. The matter was considered by the competent authority and the credentials of the Petitioner were evaluated and on finding that FDR (Fixed Deposit Receipt) given towards the EMD furnished by the Petitioner was forged (based on the materials collected and placed on record), a detailed order bearing No. 2146@ @vkj-lh-&4@Nxxzklfov-@2020 jk;iqj] fnukad 24@02@2020 has been passed, whereby the Petitioner has been blacklisted from participating in the tenders. A copy of the said proceeding has been produced for perusal of this Court.
4.
In view of the turn of events, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the matter might be closed without prejudice to the rights and liberties
of the Petitioner to challenge the correctness of the order dated 24.02.2020.
5.
In the said circumstance, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed, without prejudice to the rights and liberties as above. 6.
In view of the turn of events, I.A. No. 2 of 2020 preferred by the Intervenor does not require to be considered. It also stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (P.R. Ramachandra Menon) (Parth Prateem Sahu) Chief Justice Judge Chandra