Ajay Kumar Tripathi, CJ
1. Heard counsel for the parties.
2. The writ application was filed by the Petitioner when in furtherance to the notice inviting tender for laying down pipes for drinking water supply in
Raipur Municipal area as part of the Smart City Project, was floated.
3. In the writ application, many allegations have been made in the manner in which the tender was decided and the work which came to be awarded
upon the Respondent No.8.
4. When the matter was initially taken up on 04.05.2018, there were an interim order of stay for a period of one week passed by the earlier Division
Bench presided by the then Chief Justice. However, subsequently vide order dated 22.06.2018 and taking note of certain factual position, especially
with regard to the term deposit on which certain objections had been made by the Petitioner in relation to the private Respondent No.8, the said Bench
vacated the order of stay and the matter thereafter was adjourned for hearing.
5. Counsel for the Petitioner, through various documents and evidence which are annexures, has tried to establish before this Court that there were
many a shortfall in relation to the response given by the private Respondent to the NIT. Some of those short falls which was sought to be explained
away as technical glitches, but as per the counsel did not remain at that.
6. However, we do not find that it is an open and shut case or the reasons so urged before us on which the counsel for the Petitioner wants
cancellation of the award of tender and work to Respondent No.8, somehow goes to the root of the matter where gross violation stands established.
7. Even otherwise, since the work has already been awarded and the work has been given certain priority as part of the dead-line which the Raipur
city has to meet to be eligible for funding and other support system under the Smart City Projects, we may not like to interfere with this award of
tender now which will jeopardize the execution which has already been set in motion. Admittedly the work is being executed by the private
Respondent specially after the order of stay was vacated.
8. In the above circumstances the writ application stands disposed off without any interference with the contract.
