M/S. Agrawal Stone Crushing Company Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:23520-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

W.P(C) No.2739 of 2026

¶6

M/s. Agrawal Stone Crushing Company Through Its Partner Gopal Agrawal, S/o Shri Shubhash Chandra Agrawal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o T.P Nagar, Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh

¶7

.... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Municipal Corporation- Korba Through- Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Korba, Saket Bhawan, ITI Chowk, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Korba, Saket Bhawan, ITI Chowk, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶12

SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA

¶13

Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.06.02 19:40:24 +0530

¶14

2

¶15

4 - Umesh Rathore S/o Shri Santosh Rathore Aged About 30 Years R/o Mahaveer Nagar, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶18

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶19

For Petitioner	: Mr. Prince Agrawal, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1	: Mr. Praveen Das, Addl. Adv. A.G.
For Respondents No.2&3	: Mr. HB Agrawal, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate.
For Respondent No.4 -----------------------------------	: Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate. -----------------------------------------------------

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶23

02.06.2026

¶24

1. Heard Prince Agrawal, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Addl. Adv. A.G. for the State, Mr. HB Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned Advocate appearing for Municipal Corporation and Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Advocate appearing for private Respondent.

¶25

2. After arguing at length, learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the reason which has been assigned for rejecting the technical bid of the Applicant/Petitioner has been served to him only yesterday along with covering memo filed by Respondents No. 2 & 3. He further states that the fact that the bidder who has been

¶26

3

¶27

declared L-1, his selection is also against the tender conditions and for the said purpose he seeks permission to withdraw the present Petition with liberty to file a fresh Petition.

¶28

3. In view of the above, the instant Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh challenging the action of the Respondents as also the rejection of the Petitioner.

¶29

4. Accordingly, IA No.02/26, an application for urgent hearing during summer vacation and IA No.04/26, an application for urgent

¶30

hearing stand disposed of.

¶31

Sd/- Sd/-

¶32

(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶33

(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice

¶34

Priya