L.C.BHADOO,J. - (1.) THE petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the action of respondents No. 2 and 3 whereby the respondents had not supplied the tender form to the petitioner to enable him to participate in the tender process.
(2.) BRIEF facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that respondent No. 3 issued notice inviting tenders on 1-9-2004 (Annexure-P/1) which was published on 3-9-2004 in the newspaper, invited applications from the intending tenderers in a sealed envelope by 17-9-2004 in respect of execution of 15 works under the area of Nagar Panchayat Takhatpur on labour rates. The case of the petitioner is that on 16-9-2004 the petitioner approached respondent No. 3 for supply of the tender form along with the terms and conditions of the N.I.T. and for that purpose the petitioner also deposited the amount (Annexure-P/2). The petitioner made a written application to respondent No.3 but the same was not acknowledged by respondent No. 3, therefore, he approached the Tehsildar, Takhatpur, as respondent No. 3 was not supplying the tender form, he made a written request (Annexure-P/3) also. Then 17-9-2004 being a holiday, 18-9-2004 being Saturday and 19-9- 2004 being Sunday, the tenders were not opened and the same were opened on 20th September 2004. In the meantime, the petitioner being aggrieved by the action of respondent No.3 approached the Sub Divisional Officer on 18- 9-2004 and made an application Annexure-P/4. On that, the S.D.O. ordered for supply of the tender form to the petitioner, even then the tender form was not supplied to him. Further case of the petitioner is that the respondents did everything in a very secretive manner without making public Known about the process and that was being done only to favour the persons of their choice and deprive other persons. Even in the N.I.T., which was published in the newspaper, the eligibility criteria was not incorporated. The approximate cost of the work to be executed was also not mentioned in the N.I.T. The period of completion of work was also not mentioned and the relevant information, which was mandatory in nature, was not mentioned in the N.I.T. The respondents ought to have worked in a transparent and fair manner. The respondents acted in utter violation of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities (the Conduct of Business of the Mayor-in-Council/President-in-Council and the Powers and Functions of the Authorities) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rulesl998').
(3.) REPLY has been filed on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 in which it has been mentioned that N.I.T. was published in the newspaper and 17-9-2004 being a holiday, a corrigendum was issued and the days were extended up to 20th September 2004. It is further stated that EMD can be deposited in cash and the terms and conditions of the notice dated 3rd September 2004 were also prepared, copy of the same is Annexure-R-2/3 As per the terms and conditions of the N.I.T. only those contractors were eligible to participate in the tender process whose names were registered in the Government Department and in that connection, they were required to submit the registration certificate at the time of purchase of the tender documents. As the petitioner was not a registered contractor with any of the Government department and he was not having any registration certificate, therefore, he was not satisfying the eligibility criteria, as such he was not entitled to purchase the tender form. The petitioner did not contact the respondents up to 15-9-2004 whereas, N.I.T. was published on 3-9-2004. Even according to the Rules, 1998, the registration of a contractor with a particular department of Government was necessary for issuance of the tender form and for award of contract. Rest of the allegations have been denied by the respondents. Rejoinder has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner.;