Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 475 (MP)

BAHADUR SINGH BHATTI v. STATE OF M P

2009-04-15

DIPAK MISRA, R.K.GUPTA

body2009
Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioner by filing this petition has challenged the corrigendum issued to the NIT dated 5. 3. 09 which is annexure P/1 to the petition. This notice is published, according to the petitioner with ulterior motive. According to the petitioner, two corrigendum were already issued by the respondents and the third corrigendum dated 5. 3. 09 which is Annexure P/1 is under challenge. ( 2. ) THE aforesaid corrigendum has been challenged on the ground that several parties who have participated from outside who would be deprived of to take part in the process view of short time of two days of corrigendum dated 5. 3. 09. According to the petitioner, the forms are made available only at three places in the State of Madhya pradesh i. e. Jabalpur, Seoni and Bhopal and for this reason, the corrigendum had been challenged. ( 3. ) IT is to be seen that the address which is given by the petitioner is of Jabalpur and according to the petitioner the forms are available at Jabalpur also. In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that petitioner shall not be able to submit the bid because he belongs to a place other than State of madhya Pradesh. It is also not the case of the petitioner that head Office of the petitioner is situated elsewhere other than jabalpur, Seoni and Bhopal so that it could be said that there was no sufficient time for the petitioner to submit the tender. In view of the aforesaid, the ground which has been taken by the petitioner is without any substance. ( 4. ) THE respondents have justified their action on the ground that there had been necessity to issue the corrigendum, Annexure P/1 dated 5. 3. 09. According to the respondents, the first notice was published on 22. 01. 09 and the same was made available in the Website of Government of M. P. The justification which has been given is that initially the estimated cost of the work in the NIT was mentioned to be Rs. 107. 60 lacs and the date of selling out of the tender form was prescribed up to 10. 2. 2009. It is stated that in the NIT dated 22. 1. 107. 60 lacs and the date of selling out of the tender form was prescribed up to 10. 2. 2009. It is stated that in the NIT dated 22. 1. 2009, the estimated cost was notified and after technical opinion and survey was carried out, the estimated value of the work increased and, therefore, the corrigendum on 3. 2. 2009 was issued. The last date for selling out of the form to the corrigendum dated 3. 2. 2009 was 17. 2. 2009 and the date of receiving the prescribed bid was fixed as 3. 3. 2009. As a consequence of the survey, the estimated cost was changed to Rs. 103. 48 lacs. ( 5. ) IT is also stated in the return that final technical opinion was given, on clubbing of all quantities of specific civil work to be carried out for constructing the tank and final estimated cost was worked out which was Rs. 136. 27 lacs. Accordingly, the corrigendum was published and the date was extended for selling out of the forms till 6. 3. 2009. ( 6. ) ON the basis of the aforesaid, the justification was given by the respondents that since there had been increase of the estimated cost, therefore, it was necessary for the respondents to issue the corrigendum and accordingly the corrigendum was published. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it is clear that petitioner has not imputed any malafides or other but the only ground which has been raised is that in the corrigendum issued, there was no sufficient time given and the tender forms were made available only at three places in the State of Madhya pradesh i. e. Jabalpur, Seoni and Bhopal and on this ground it is submitted by him that parties interested were deprived from participating in the tender process. The address of the petitioner shows that he belongs to Jabalpur. It is to be seen that in the present case, no real person belonging to other places have come forward to challenge the date given in the corrigendum to submit the bid. ( 7. ) IN view of the aforesaid, we do not find any case in favour of the petitioner to allow the present petition and as a consequence of the same, the writ petition is dismissed.