., A the reeinondent to refer the dispute] matter to the of Bharath Sachar Me Limited (in short 'the BSNL1 ____"P:I'aeS;an. In pursuance of the tender notification dated 22.12.2004, the' petitioner submitted tender for laying underground cable. His W.P.No.3356/2006 ORDER
The petitioner who is an enlisted eont1’actor””*-of the
respondent] BSN L is before this Court under ”
of the Constitution of India pmymg’ the zelgcfsz
a) to quash the order of contract
dt.20.2.200_6 in Ne.iv«2/we/eye’ °AKG/2005-06/50,
herein, as illegal
and ‘V tettddeztfl document dt.22.12.2004
b) issue directing the mespondent to
sanction the bills in respect of the works
_ .eomplete_d carried out forthwith;
arbitration as per Clause 17.1 of the tender
. – A1mexure~A.
2. case of the petitioner is that he is an; approved
tender was accepted by the respondent. After the works order was
issued, the petitioner has executed the work to some extent
W.P.No.3356/2006
satisfactorily. On the alleged ground of delay in ” the
work, the respondent has temzinated the
1*1,¢m,foxe, the petitioner is before AV
as xnentioned above.
3. The xespondent h:%1§V.nots§gtefi}ent of ebjecfions.
4. Learned qougscl :*£i.”>’1″‘:.1′:.’:i§’: that the writ
petition in for quashing
Ierminatio:;__Vev1t2e1;” Annexnre ‘G’ becomes
mfinemoes. there was no impediment for
the xesponéieet to Jirills raised and submitted by the
so fhefieeks eompieted and as on to-day, there
“:19 He submits that the E.M.D amount
may be ordered to be refunded.
eounsei for the respondent submits that the
” ” ‘T ;work was re-dzendered and the same has been
and the bill submitted by the petitioner would be
c011.s.:ide1*ed and sanctioned in aeeonianee with the tender
‘ ” egreement at Annexme ‘A’, if they are stili pending.