1 / 5 2025:CGHC:16350-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1685 of 2025 1 - Hariom Tiwari S/o S.K. Tiwari Aged About 42 Years R/o Street No. 01, Modal Town Ward No. 02, Motilal Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural And Urban Development, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (R) Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Municipal Corporation Through Its Commissioner, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 5-Chair Person Municipal Corporation Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 6 - M/s Urban Enviro Waste Management Ltd. Nagpur, 26 Mate Chowk BPCL Petrol Pump, Gopal Nagar Road Nagpur 440022 (Maharashtra). ... Respondents ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.04.13 13:40:36 +0530 2 / 5 For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. AG For Respondent No.4 & 5 : Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Per, Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 08/04/2025 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents No.1 to 3/State & Ms. Preeti Yadav, learned counsel appeared on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for Respondents No.4 & 5. 2. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be please be kind enough to pass an order declaring the special meeting of 21/11/2024 invalid and declaring all the decisions taken in the said meeting void. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the order passed on 30.12.2024 (Annexure P/1) declaring them void in the interest of 3 / 5 justice. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case including cost of the petition. 3. The brief facts of this case are that on 21/11/2024 for cleanliness of the City Bhilai tenders were called for the upcoming year 2024- 25 in which the special body meeting was called and the tenders which were invited was called out after allotment of tender. Pursuant to the said NIT the companies namely M/s Nature Green Tools and Machines Private Limited Noida, M/s SRMT Waste Management Pvt. Ltd. Gwalior Madhya Pradesh, M/s Surendra Barik Katak Oddisa, M/s Urban Enviro Waste Management Nagpur (Respondent No.6 herein) have filed their bidding for allotment of the tender. 4. The petitioner has filed the instant petition against the allotment of the tender to the Respondent No.6 by the Respondent No.4 and 5 for cleaning the door to door waste management by the residential colony situated in the area of Respondent No.5. 5. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the tender has been allotted to Respondent No.6 without fulfilling the criteria which is necessary for the issuance of the tender. It is further submitted that on 21/11/2024 a General Body Meeting was conducted in which the President, Municipal Corporation without 4 / 5 majority has passed the order for allotment of the tender in favour of the Respondent No.6. 6. Per contra, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Government Advocate as well as Ms. Preeti Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for Respondents No.4 & 5 would submit that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the order of the tender as he has not participated in the tender process and furthermore there is no illegality in the tender process and the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 8. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the elected cooperator of the Ward No.3, Modal Town, Bhilai, as such he was not party to the tender process, therefore, he lacks the standing to challenge the tender award. 9. It is the trite law that ordinarily, the person who seeks a relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must have personal or individual right in the subject -matter and the word ordinarily includes a person who has been prejudicially affected by an act or omission of an authority. 10. It is also settled law that a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such 5 / 5 rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. (See: Vinoy Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others (2001) 4 SCC 734). 11. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself as not maintainable. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ashu