Bajrang Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 1855 OF 2015 1.

Bajrang Agrawal S/o Shri Banarsi Das Agrawal, aged about 55 years, R/o Itwari Bazar, Raigarh, Police Station Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, Mahanadi, Mantralaya, New Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2.

Dy. Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, Mahanadi, Mantralaya, New Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 3.

Chief Engineer, C.G. Rural Road Development Authority (Chief Minister Rural Road & Development Planning Cell), Old Zila Panchayat Building, Collectorate Campus, Raipur (C.G.) 4.

Executive Engineer, Rural Development Division, C.G. Rural Road Development Authority, Raigarh Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate.

For Respondent-State :

Mr. Prafull Bharat, Addl. Advocate General.

Hon'ble Shri Navin Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board Per NAVIN SINHA, C.J.

14/10/2015 1.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner at the very outset submits that he does not press the challenge for cumulative award of 22 different works related to different villages. The relief is confined to the prequalification required for experience of similar works in one financial year equal to 1/3 of estimated cost. Reliance was placed on a Government communication dated 16.6.2015 made to the Petitioner in context of another contract.

2.

Learned Additional Advocate General from the schedule for allotment of the tenders points out that the last date for award of tender was 10.10.2015. The writ petition has been filed thereafter. There is no

-2statement that works have not been awarded. Third party rights may have accrued.

3.

In view of the limited submission made before us that the Petitioner desires to represent before the authorities with regard to the pre-qualification condition based on his perception from the letter dated 16.6.2015, there is no occasion for us to make any observations on merits except to state that if the Petitioner represents, the authorities may consider the representation to their satisfaction expeditiously in accordance with law.

4.

The writ petition is disposed.

Sd/- Sd/- (Navin Sinha) (P. Sam Koshy) /sharad/* Chief Justice Judge