Suresh Kumar Rathi v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 853 of 2015 Suresh Kumar Rathi S/o Ram Kishan Rathi aged about 46 years Kurmi Para Ward No. 17, Bemetara, P.S. Bemetara, Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary Food and Supply Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. General Manager, (Transport) Nagrik Apurti Nigam, Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

3. The Collector, Bemetara, Distt. Bemetara, (Chhattisgarh)

4. The District Manager, Chhattisgarh State Civil Supply Corporation Limited, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

5. The Manager the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supply Bemetara, Distt. Bemetara, (Chhattisgarh)

6. Rajesh Yadav S/o Vijay Yadav R/o Dhamdha, P.S. Dhamdha, Distt. Durg, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Arjun Yadav, Advocate.

For Respondent/ State :

Shri U.N.S. Deo, Government Advocate.

For Respondents.2,4&5 :

Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas, Advocate.

HON'BLE SHRI NAVIN SINHA, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE SHRI P. SAM KOSHY, J.

Order On Board Per NAVIN SINHA, C.J.

13/5/2015 1.

Heard Counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent Nos.1 to 5. 2.

The Petitioner inter alia, was a bidder under a tender notice published by the appearing Respondents for transportation of food grains. According to the Petitioner, tender has been finalized in favour of Respondent No.6 treating him to be L-1.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the technical bid documents of Respondent No.6, particularly with regard to ownership details of the transport vehicles were wrongly submitted leading to the acceptance of the bid. Because Respondent No.6 was not the owner of the vehicles in question, his technical bid should have been rejected. 4.

We find that the Petitioner has represented before the concerned Respondents on 21.4.2015 and has filed this writ application barely days later on 11.5.2015.

5.

The only appropriate order to be passed by us at this stage is to direct Respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 to consider the representation of the Petitioner and dispose it by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, but after hearing all concerned.

6.

Let such orders be passed preferably within a maximum period of six weeks from the date of receipt and/ or production of a copy of this order before the concerned Respondents.

7.

The writ petition stands disposed.

(Navin Sinha) (P. Sam Koshy) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE sunita