Judgment · High Court

Shri KC Raikwar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. M Raveendran, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent No.1. Shri Lokesh Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. No.6. Shri Atul Sreedharan, learned counsel for the respondent By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the award of contract in favour of the 6th respondent and has also prayed for conducting CBI inquiry in the matter against the respondents No.5 and 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the averments made in the petition and the return, it appears that the petitioner has alleged that the experience certificate submitted by the 5th and 6th respondents along with tender are false and fabricated and on that count, the cancellation of the work order has been prayed and the CBI inquiry has also been demanded for. In our considered opinion, the reasons on the basis of which the reliefs are claimed, cannot be accepted in the absence of their being any material available on record to hold that the certificates are false or fabricated. The petitioner instead of taking recourse of law by approaching the appropriate forum about the alleged fabrication of the documents has approached this Court for the aforesaid reliefs. Neither this Court can hold roving enquiry nor this Court can direct an enquiry through CBI on mere asking. In the aforesaid circumstances, we decline interference in the matter. The petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. (Shantanu Kemkar) Judge (S.K. Seth) Judge sourabh