Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahesh Prasad Chourasiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 January, 2012
1
W.P. No.1065/2011
16/1/2012:
None is appearing for the petitioner.
Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv. for the
respondents.
Challenging the action of the respondents in clubbing together various works and issuing a consolidated contract for construction of stop dam in the District of Damoh, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
Petitioner claims to be a Class III Licensed Contractor. Annexure P/2 is the license issued to the petitioner valid for a period of five years. According to the aforesaid license petitioner is entitled to enter into a contract subject to the maximum amount of Rs.2 Crore. It is the case of the petitioner that under the "Bundelkhand Package", a scheme floated by the Central Government. Respondents have decided to construct 13 stop dam in the district of Damoh, Sagar etc.. However, instead of issuing tender notice and auction for each dam separately, it is stated that all the 13 works have been clubbed together and a consolidated tender notice has been issued. As a result cost of work amount exceeds to more than 300 Crore and petitioner is ousted for participating in the process of tender. Inter alia contending that if individual tenders were issued for each work separating petitioner would have entitled to participate in the process of tendering and clubbing together had deprived the petitioner to participate, petitioner has approached this Court.
Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents submits that as stop dams were to be constructed in different 2 district and taking note of consideration, nature of work as it would be expeditious and advantageous for the State Government to get the work constructed by a single arrangement action was taken. It is stated that question of clubbing together of various works is a policy decision of the State Government and in the absence of any statutory rules or regulations being violated in doing so, Shri Samdarshi Tiwari submits that petitioner should not have any grievance.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the fact that petitioner has filed this writ petition on the ground that clubbing together the work deprive the petitioner from participating in the process of tendering. However, petitioner has not shown any statutory rules or regulation which is shown to be violated in doing so. Petitioner does not have any legal enforceable right available and therefore, the impugned action can be termed as illegal. From the statement made by Shri Samdarshi Tiwari it is seen that a policy decision which has been taken on the basis of various consideration both administrative, financial and technical and therefore, in doing so, we do not find any error of law warranting interference into the matter.
Accordingly, petition is dismissed being devoid of merits.
( Rajendra Menon ) ( T. K. Kaushal )
Judge Judge
Mrs.m i shra