Sheik Jakir Hussain S/o Sheik Musa Aged About 60 Years R/o Sukma, Post Sukma v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:14488-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1556 of 2025 Sheik Jakir Hussain S/o Sheik Musa Aged About 60 Years R/o Sukma, Post Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department, (National Highways), Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chief Engineer National Highways Zone, Public Works Department, Pension Bada, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Regional OfÏcer Regional OfÏce M/o RT&H, NH Campus, Pension Bada, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Joint Secretary (Technical), Public Works Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 1558 of 2025 Sheik Jakir Hussain S/o Sheik Musa Aged About 60 Years R/o Sukma, Post Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department (National Highways), Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Engineer National Highways Zone, Public Works Department, Pension Bada, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 3 - Regional OfÏcer Regional OfÏce M/o RT&H, NH Campus, Pension Bada, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Joint Secretary (Technical) Public Works Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prafull N Bharat, Advocate General assisted by Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 26/03/2025 1. As common facts and issues are involved in both the petitions, they are being considered and decided together. WPC No. 1556/2025 is taken as the lead case. 2. Heard Mr. Manoj Pranjpe, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) as well as Mr. Prafull N Bharat, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the State/respondents. 3. The petitioner, in WPC No. 1556 of 2025 has prayed for the following relief(s): “1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the letter/order dated 13.03.2025 passed by the Joint Secretary (Technical), Public Works Department (Annex.P/1). 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the letter/order dated 17.03.2025 issued by Chief Engineer, Public Works Department National Highway Zone Raipur (Annex.P/2). 3 3] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, a order/orders, direction/directions quashing the entire Notice Inviting Tender dated 13.03.2025 (Annex. P/3) and the further proceeding thereto and the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for award of contract in pursuance of the Notice Inviting Tender dated 13.09.2024. 4] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. The petitioner, in WPC No. 1558 of 2025 has prayed for the following relief(s): “1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the letter/order dated 13.03.2025 passed by the Joint Secretary (Technical), Public Works Department (Annex.P/1). 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the letter/order dated 17.03.2025 issued by Chief Engineer, Public Works Department National Highway Zone Raipur (Annex.P/2). 3] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the entire Notice Inviting Tender dated 13.03.2025 (Annex.P/3) and the further proceeding thereto and the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for award of contract in pursuance of the Notice Inviting Tender dated 10.09.2024. 4] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 5. The facts of the case, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm engaged in the business of construction of Bridge, Roads, Buildings and etc. and having a very good reputation in Chhattisgarh and in adjoining States. In WPC No. 1556/2025, a Notice 4 Inviting Tender (for short, the NIT) dated 13.09.2024 bearing bid No. 94/CE/NH/TC/44-30/2024, System ID 2024 Morth 826128_1 was issued for construction of 4 bridges on NH-30 (Old NH-221) Jagdalpur-Sukma- Konta Road in the State of Chhattisgarh on EPC Mode, for construction of (A) Bridge at Km. 47.000 (Jhiram nalla) {B) Bridge at Km. 123.000 Kerlapal nalla) (C) Bridge at Km. 127.800 (Bodaguda nalla) (D) Bridge at Km. 137.400 (Dubbatota nalla). 6. In WPC No. 1558/2025, NIT dated 10.09.2024 bearing bid No. 93/CE/NH/TC/44-29/2024, System ID 2024 Morth 825307_1 was issued for construction of 5 bridges on NH-30 (Old NH-221) Jagdalpur- Sukma- Konta Road in the State of Chhattisgarh on EPC Mode, namely (A) Bridge at Km. 88.200 (Ful-Chhindgarh River) (B) Bridge at Km. 122.600 (Malger River) (C) Bridge at Km. 145.000 (Penta Nalah) (D) Bridge at Km. 163.400 (Errabor River) and (E) Bridge at Km. 176.600 (Injaram Nalah). 7. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has participated in the aforesaid NITs and financial bid was opened on 15.01.2025 after due evaluation by the Evaluation Committee and thereafter the said rates and said bids were examined by Screening Committee also. The petitioner was declared technically qualified and thereafter, on 15.01.2025 the financial bid was opened and since petitioner was the only tenderer, his rates were placed before the Screening/Evaluation Committee constituted by Government of India, Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways (for short, M/o RT&H) as per the circular dated 21.05.2010 bearing No. RW/NH-24035/4/2008-P &M/PIC. The financial bid was opened on 15.01.2025 and evaluated by the Evaluation committee constituted under clause No. 2.1 and thereafter, the said bid was examined by the screening committee constituted under clause No. 2.2 (ii) of the circular dated 21.05.2010 and thereafter, the same 5 was sent to the State Government for its approval. As per the clause No. 5 of the circular, if the recommendation of the Committee are not found acceptable, the competent authority shall have the matter referred to the Ministry duly recommending the reasons and justification for such non- acceptance. 8. Mr. Paranjpe further submits that from a bare perusal of Clause No. 5 of the Circular dated 21.05.2010 (Annexure P/7), issued by the Government of India, it is quite vivid that, the competent authority i.e. the State Government ought to have assigned the reasons, justifications for non acceptance of and the recommendation of the Evaluation Committee (constituted under clause No. 2.1) and Screening Committee (constituted under clause No. 2.2(ii))} of the circular dated 21.05.2010. In the instant cases, the Joint Secretary as well as the Chief Engineer neither assigned any reason or justification for nonacceptance of the recommendations of the above committees and even no reason has been assigned for cancellation of entire tender process dated 13.09.2024 bid No. 94/CE/NH/TC/44-30/2024, System ID 2024 Morth 826128_1 and 10.09.2024, bid No. 93/CE/NH/TC/44-29/2024, System ID 2024 Morth 825307_1. Once the financial bid of the petitioner was opened on 15.01.2025 and evaluated by the Evaluation Committee and examined by the Screening Committee and now at this stage the entire tender process has been cancelled, illegal arbitrarily. The decision making process of cancellation of the entire tender process is arbitrary and contrary to the circular dated 21.05.2010. Mr. Paranjpe further submits that there is no manner of doubt that the Government or authority inviting tender may cancel the tender process but only on sufÏcient and reasonable ground and at appropriate stage. In the case at hand, respondent authorities failed to point out any satisfactory ground or reason for cancellation of the entire 6 tender process after declaring the petitioner to be lowest bidder/after opening of the financial bid. The petitioner also made a representation to the Secretary, Public Works Department on 17.03.2025 i.e. after issuance of the fresh Notice Inviting Tender dated 13.03.2025. Once the financial bid of the petitioner has been opened, now it would be very difÏcult for the petitioner to re-participate in fresh tender which has been floated by the State as the price is now known to one and all. 9. Mr. Paranjpe draws attention of this Court to page 142 of the petition which is the minutes of the meeting of the Evaluation Committee held on 24.12.2024 for technical evaluation of the bids which reads as under: “17. It was apprised to the Committee that as per MoRTH circular dated 28.08.2024 for acceptance of single bids for National Highways work, single bid received in open bidding will not be rejected provided the following conditions are satisfied: (i) the procurement was satisfactorily advertised and sufÏcient time was given for submission of bids; (ii) the qualification criteria were not unduly restrictive; and (iii) prices are reasonable in comparison to market values. 18. After detailed deliberation and discussion with confirmation of the conditions mentioned in Para 17 Sr. No. (i) and (ii) above, the Evaluation Committee decided opening of the Financial Bid of the above technical responsive single bidder as per the RFP subject to having available BID capacity (updated as on day before opening of financial bids) more than the total BID value and verification of Bid Security Bank guarantee from the respective bank. The Acceptance of bid will be recommended subject to the condition that the quoted price is reasonable in comparison to market values. The quoted rate shall be examined taking into consideration the comparison with the similar contracts awarded elsewhere within the State.” 10. In view of the above, Mr. Paranjpe submits that the State ought not have rejected the bid(s) of the petitioner and the recommendation of the 7 Evaluation Committee ought to have been forwarded to the Central Government. No reason whatsoever has been assigned for rejection of the bid of the petitioner in both the cases and fresh tenders have been issued in a haste on 17.03.2025. 11. Mr. Paranjpe places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Bandeep Singh & Others {(2016) 1 SCC 724} and a judgment of a Division Bench of this High Court in M/s. Tirupati Enterprises v. State of Chhattisgarh {WP(C) No. 659/2019, dated 25.07.2019} wherein also, the order rejecting the bid of the petitioner therein, was set aside. In a similar case, a co-ordinate Division Bench of this High Court in KLA-OM Joint Venture v. Union of India & Others {WP(C) No. 1398/2016, decided on 27.10.2016} has quashed the order of the State Government and the State Government was directed to refer the matter to the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India. Mr. Paranjpe submits that in light of the decisions referred (supra), these petitions may be allowed. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Prafull N Bharat, learned Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents submits that the order dated 13.03.2025 (Annexure P/1) and 17.03.2025 (Annexure P/2) passed by the authorities are just and proper warranting no interference. The petitioner has misconstrued the circular dated 21.05.2010 issued by the Government of India. The present NITs were the first call and it was only the petitioner who was found technically qualified. The rates quoted by the petitioner were higher and in the adjoining areas for similar work, the work has been done at 20 to 25% lower than the schedule of rates (for short, the SOR). He further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions has held that it is the authority issuing the tender who is the best person to understand the requirements of a tender and in the case in hand, since 8 there was a single tenderer, the fresh tenders were issued so as to invite more number of bidders which would ultimately be beneficial for the State. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 14. The Circular dated 21.05.2010 issued by the Government of India reads as under: “Government of India Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (PIC Zone) Transport Bhavan, No.1, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110 001 No. RW/NH-24035/4/2008-P&M/PIC 2010 Dated the 21st May, To The Secretaries and Engineers-in-Chief/Chief Engineers (National Highways), State Public Works Departments, Union Territories (dealing with National Highways and other Centrally Financed Schemes); Director General (Works), Central Public Works Department; Director General Border Roads; The Chairman, National Highways Authority of India; Regional OfÏcers/Engineer Liaison OfÏcers of M/o RTH. Sub: Guidelines regarding procedures to be adopted for invitation of tenders and qualification of Contractors for execution of Road and Bridge works on National Highways and Centrally Financed Schemes - Modifications in the procedures. Sir, The circular of even number dated 16.3.2010 amending the circular dated 27.11.2009 has been reviewed on the basis of the feedback received from various State PWDs / Regional OfÏces of Ministry of Road Transport & Highways expressing practical difÏculties with regard to the functioning of Evaluation Committees especially for the works costing between Rs. 5.00 crore and Rs. 100 crore, the cost range within which bulk of procurement of civil works is expected. A concern has been expressed that the procedure specified would require almost all the bid documents to be brought to the Ministry unopened for evaluation or the concerned Chief 9 Engineer of the Ministry has to visit the State frequently to chair the Evaluation Committee Meetings and that in either case, the procedure is unwieldy and logistically cumbersome. 2. It has, therefore, been decided that in supercession of the circular dated 16.3.2010 and partial modification of the circular dated 27.11.2009 (sub para A & B of para 4(III) stands modified and small amendment to Annexure-II is enclosed as addendum) the following procedure shall be followed for evaluation of bids (Technical as well as Financial): 2.1. Projects costing more than Rs. 5 crore and upto Rs. 25 crore The bids in this cost range will be opened and evaluated by an Evaluation Committee headed by Chief Engineer (NH) or the concerned Chief Engineer, PWD. The composition of the Committee shall be as follows: - (a) Chief Engineer (NH) of the concerned State or -Chairman the concerned Chief Engineer, PWD (b) Regional OfÏcer/ELO of M/o RT&H dealing with -Member the State concerned (c) Superintending Engineer (concerned NH Circle) / Executive Engineer (concerned NH/PWD Division) of State PWD -Member Secretary 2.2 Projects costing more than Rs. 25 Crore and upto Rs. 50 Crore. (i) The bids shall be opened and evaluated by the Evaluation Committee having the same composition as mentioned at Para 2.1 above. (ii) The evaluated bids shall then be examined by a Screening Committee having the following composition: - (a) Chief Engineer (M/o RT&H) dealing with the -Chairman concerned project (b) Chief Engineer (NH) of the concerned State / -Member or the concerned Chief Engineer, PWD (c) Representative of Finance Wing (M/O RT&H) -Member (d) Superintending Engineer (M/O RT&H) dealing -Member Secretary with the concerned State Governments. 2.3 Projects costing more than Rs. 50 Crore and upto Rs. 100 Crore The bids shall be opened and evaluated by the Evaluation Committee headed by the Chief Engineer (M/o RT&H). The composition of the Committee shall be as follows: (a) Chief Engineer (M/o RT&H) dealing with the concerned project. -Chairman (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) 10 Chief Engineer (NH) of the concerned State PWD. -Member Regional OfÏcer / ELO of M/o RT&H dealing with the State concerned. -Member Representative of Finance Wing (M/o RT&H) PAO of the concerned State. -Member Superintending Engineer (concerned Executive Engineer NH Circle/ (concerned NH Division) of State PWD. -Member Superintending Engineer (M/o RT&H) dealing with the concerned State Governments. -Member Secretary 3. Regardless of the authority issuing the invitation for bids, the sale of bid documents may be done at different places, such as OfÏces of concerned Chief Engineer, PWD, the concerned SE, PWD and the concerned Regional OfÏcer of the M/o RT&H. Similarly, the bids may also be received at different places as mentioned above. However, once the bids are received, the concerned Chief Engineer PWD shall take the custody of the bids and the bids shall be opened by the Evaluation Committee in the ofÏce of the concerned Chief Engineer, PWD. 4. Projects costing Rs. 100 crore and above The usual procedure for Pre-qualification of the contractors will be followed. Pre-qualification offers and the bids for the works in this category will be received by this Ministry on behalf of the State Government concerned. The bids relating to pre-qualification of bidders as well as pre-qualified bidders shall be opened and evaluated by the Evaluation Committee headed by the Chief Engineer of the Ministry as per the evaluation committee as mentioned at Para 2.3 above. 5. The authority competent to accept the tender shall not accept any bid in supercession of the recommendations of the Evaluation Committee or the Screening Committee as the case may be. Should such occasion arise, where recommendation of the Committee are not found acceptable, the Competent Authority shall have the matter referred to the Ministry duly recommending the reasons and justification for such non-acceptance. 6. As far as possible, e-tendering should be introduced by State PWDs for better transparency. 7. The above instructions may be brought to the notice of all concerned for immediate compliance for works on National Highways and Centrally financed Schemes (CRF,LWE, ISC, EI works) of this Ministry. 8.This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority. Yours faithfully, 11 Sd/- Illegible (A. K. Shrivastava) Superintending Engineer (PIC) For Director General (Road Development) & Special Secretary” 15. The petitioner has filed another circular dated 31.03.2016 issued by the Government of India, M/o RT&H, which is also with relation to the guidelines regarding procedures to be adopted for invitation of tenders and qualification of contractors for execution of road and bridge work on National Highways and Centrally Financed Schemes. Clause 7 of the said circular is identical to that of circular dated 21.05.2010. Clause 7 of the circular dated 31.03.2016 reads as under: “7. The authority competent to accept the bids in the State PWD/BRO shall not accept any bid in supersession of the recommendation of the Evaluation Committee or the Screening Committee, as the case may be. In case such an occasion arises, where recommendations of the Committee are not found acceptable, the matter shall be referred to the Ministry duly citing the reasons for non-acceptance and with full justification; but within the prescribed time of 10 days.” 16. In the present cases, clause 2.2 of the above circular is applicable. The minutes of the meeting of the Evaluation Committee held on 24.12.2024 goes to show that there were three bidders namely (i) the petitioner, (ii) M/s. B.K.Chwla and (iii) K. Chandrasekhar Rao out of which except the petitioner, the other two bidders were found to be technically non- responsive and the petitioner was only found to be technically responsive and the same has qualified for opening of the financial bid. The said Evaluation Committee had decided to open the financial bid of the technically responsive single bidder. According to Mr. Paranjpe, the financial bid was opened on 15.01.2025 and the Evaluation Committee has verified the rates and it was sent to the State Government. In light of the circular dated 21.05.2010, clause 5, the recommendation ought to have 12 been forwarded to the Central Government and the State Government could not have rejected the bid of the petitioner. 17. The objection of the learned Advocate General that as the petitioner alone was found to be qualified, the fresh tender has been issued, is noticed to be rejected as had it been a case that the petitioner did not fulfill other requisite criteria, then its tender ought not have been accepted and his financial bid was also not required to be opened. When the petitioner was found technically qualified, then only his financial bid has been opened. 18. The financial bid of the petitioner was opened on 15.01.2025 and the fresh NIT for the same work has been issued on 13.03.2025 and in the meantime, no communication has been made by the respondent/State to the petitioner as to whether his tender was rejected or accepted. Even if the petitioner was the single bidder who was found technically qualified, the State could have very well cancelled the entire tender process then and there without opening the financial bid of the petitioner. 19. Though the Courts ordinarily should not interfere in matters relating to tender or contract, however, when the decision making process itself is vitiated, the Courts may intervene. In the present case, the State has adopted a methodology which is not at all prescribed and on the contrary, if the State was not agreeable to the recommendation made by the Evaluation Committee /Screening Committee, it should have adopted the mode as prescribed in the circular dated 21.05.2010 or the circular dated 31.03.2016 In KLA-OM Joint Venture (supra), identical issue was involved wherein a co-ordinate Division Bench of this High Court has observed as under: “22. Since the tender evaluation committee has recommended reduction of additional performance security from 15.32% to 7.32%, which ought to have been accepted by the Principal 13 Secretary, PWD, but in view of para 7 of the guidelines so issued by the Central Government, if the recommendations of the tender evaluation committee were not acceptable to the Principal Secretary, PWD, authority competent to accept the bids, it ought to have referred the matter to the concerned Ministry, Government of India, as provided in para 7 of the said guidelines assigning reasons for its disagreement, but the Secretary, PWD has not followed the guidelines issued by the Central Government and straightway took a decision holding that he is not agreeable to the proposal of the tender evaluation committee and directed to proceed as per the decision taken earlier seeking additional performance security to the extent of 15.32%. Such a course is clearly impermissible in law. 23. It is the work of the Central Government which is being executed through the National Highways Authority of India and since the questioned National Highway falls within the State of Chhattisgarh, the Central Government in its wisdom has authorized the Principal Secretary, PWD, Government of Chhattisgarh, by its guidelines to accept the bids subject to the condition that the recommendations of the high-powered tender evaluation committee are binding upon the Principal Secretary, PWD and in case, the recommendations are not found acceptable, the Principal Secretary, PWD is bound to refer the matter to the concerned Ministry, Government of India and period of limitation has also been prescribed as within ten days from the date of acceptance, but this has not been done by the Principal Secretary, PWD, as such, the decision of the State Government is arbitrary and in deviation from the standard guidelines issued by the Government of India in that behalf for acceptance of tenders in such cases. xxx xxx xxx 27. Following the law laid down in the aforesaid cases, we find that the decision of the Principal Secretary, PWD of the State Government not to accept the recommendations of the tender evaluation committee reducing the additional performance security from 15.32% to 7.32% contrary to the guidelines dated 31-3-2016 issued by the Central Government, is clearly 14 arbitrary, unfair, unjust and unreasonable. The Principal Secretary, PWD of the State Government has acted contrary to the binding guidelines issued by the Central Government. Therefore, the impugned order of the State Government dated 9-6-2016 cancelling / revoking the order dated 30-4-2016 is hereby quashed and the consequential orders are also quashed. The Principal Secretary, PWD, Government of Chhattisgarh is directed to refer the matter to the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, within ten days from today, along with the recommendations of the tender evaluation committee for its consideration and reasons for non- acceptance of the recommendations of the tender evaluation committee for taking a decision by the MORTH, Government of India in this regard and in turn, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, would take decision within three weeks from the date of receipt of the reference from the Principal Secretary, PWD, Government of Chhattisgarh in terms of para 7 of the guidelines dated 31-3-2016, and communicate the same to the petitioner and the State Government.” 20. In the present case also, if the recommendation of the Evaluation Committee / Screening was not acceptable to the State Government, the State Government ought to have referred the matter to the Ministry duly recommending the reasons and justification for such non-acceptance which has not been done in the present cases. Since a similar issue involved in the present case has already been set at rest in KLA-OM Joint Venture (supra), we are of the considered opinion that this Court should not take any other view than what has been taken by the co-ordinate Bench in the said case. Even while rejecting the bids of the petitioner, the State has not bothered to assign any reason. 21.
Decision
In view of the above discussion, the order dated 13.03.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Joint Secretary (Technical) Government of Chhattisgarh, Public Works Department, and 17.03.2025 (Annexure P/2) and the NIT dated 13.03.2025 (Annexure P/3) issued by the Chief Engineer (PWD, 15 National Highway Zone, Raipur, are set aside. The Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, is directed to refer the matter to the M/o RT&H, Government of India, within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order alongwith the recommendations made by the Evaluation Committee / Screening Committee for its consideration and reasons for non-acceptance of the recommendations of the Evaluation Committee / Screening Committee for taking a decision by the M/o RT&H, Government of India in this regard, and in turn, the M/o RT&H would take a decision within three weeks from the date of receipt of the reference from the Secretary, PWD, Government of Chhattisgarh, in terms of paragraph 5 of the Circular dated 21.05.2010 (Annexure P/7) / paragraph 7 of the circular dated 31.03.2016. 22. As a result, both these petition stand allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.04.01 15:15:59 +0530