Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2025:CGHC:44272-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1415 of 2024 Members of Indian Medical Association Korba Branch, through the member nominated by the Members of The Indian Medical Association, Korba, - Branch, Dist - Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Member Secretary, Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board, Paryavas Bhawan, North Block Sector -19, Naya Raipur, 492002, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Commissioner Division - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Chairman Division Monitoring Committee, Division - Korba, Dist - Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Collector Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Regional Environment Officer Behind - Tahsil, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. 7 - M/s VM Teacher - Soft Pvt. Ltd Awanti Vihar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 8 - The Member Secretary Central Pollution Control Board, Pariveshbhawan, East Arjun Nagar, Delhi. 110032. ... Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Y.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate For State/ Respondent : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate General Nos. 2 to 5 For Respondent Nos.1 & 6 : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate For Respondent No. 7 : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Adv. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- along with S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 01.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Y.C. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Sachin Nidhi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General along with Mr.S.S.Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent Nos.2 to 5, Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 & 6 and Mr. Abhishek Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.7. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare the tender dated 18.07.2019 become void ab initio, because no work has been started by the respondent No.07, even after lapse of the time period of the Tender. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly reject any application moved by the respondent no.07 for extension of contract and in furtherance, float the fresh tender for the selection of Common Biomedical Waste Treatment Facility service Provider at Korba-Branch. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the respondent Authority to Monitor, inspect and do periodic audit of the respondent no.07 with respect to the contract allotted for the Korba -Branch, in the interest of justice. 3 10.4 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief to the petitioner which this Hon'ble Court deems fit & proper in the facts & circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner – Indian Medical Association, Korba Branch though the member nominated by the members of the Indian Medical Association, Korba Branch, District – Korba (C.G.) against the inaction done by the respondent authority whereby the allotment of tender dated 18.07.2019 by the respondent authorities has been given to the respondent No.07 for Collection, Transportation, Treatment & Disposal of Bio-Medical Waste Inventorization and Categorization of Bio-Medical Waste generated from Healthcare Facilities in State of Chhattisgarh with respect to the Korba Division. Now, the tenure of the aforesaid tender has already been lapsed, but till date the functioning of the Common Biomedical Waste Treatment Facility Services Provider i.e. respondent No.07 not started and even the duration of the contract has been lapsed as per Clause 4.17 of the Tender. The petitioner herein praying for the limited relief to reject the further extension, if moved by the respondent No.07 and in furtherance, float the fresh tender for the selection of Common Biomedical Waste Treatment Facility service Provider. 4. At very outset, learned Advocate General, drawing attention of this Court to page 92 of the instant petition which is resolution passed by the Committee for the allotment of work in question to the respondent No.7, submitted that the instant petition is not 4 maintainable as the petitioner himself is a member of the Committee who has passed the resolution for allotment of work in question to the respondent No.7. 5. On a pointed query being made to learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner as to under what authority, he has filed the instant petition when Indian Medical Association itself was one of the member of the Committee, who had passed the resolution for allotment of work in question to the respondent
Decision
No.7, he has drawn our attention to page 94 of the writ petition and submits that while passing the resolution, the Indian Medical Association have lodged their verbal objections on the determination of the rates quoted by the respondent No.7 that it is on higher side, it should be reduced to the minimum. Further, drawing attention of this Court to page No. 108 of the writ petition, he submitted that the team of 10 doctors have nominated the petitioner to file instant petition. 6. It is undisputed fact that Indian Medical Association is a registered body and from perusal of page No. 108 of the writ petition, it transpires that the petitioner has not been nominated by Indian Medical Association to file the instant petition, but he has been nominated by the doctors, who are running Private Nursing Homes. Moreover, the Indian Medical Association itself was a member of the Committee, who have passed the resolution for allotment of work in question to the respondent No.7 and as such, it has no right to challenge the same and as such, we do not find 5 any good ground for interference in the present matter. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 7. However, considering the fact the tender in question has been floated way back on 18.07.2019 and the respondent No. 7 has already been allotted the work in question vide letter dated 25.11.2019, but till date due to environmental clearance, the work has not been started till date and as it has been stated that application for environmental clearance is pending before the authority concerned and the same would be decided shortly, this Court hope and trust that the authority concerned shall the decision on the application for environmental clearance, which is pending before it expeditiously, so that the work in question shall be started by the respondent No.7 within the period as prescribed in the work order in question. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Chandra