R K ANEJA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the award letters (copies annexures 'O', 'P' & 'Q', by which three contracts have been awarded to respondent No. 5 by respondent No. 1 and a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 to call the petitioner for negotiation and if he is found to be lowest after negotiation, the aforesaid three contracts be awarded to the petitioner.

(2.) . The petitioner has been registered as Class II Electrical Contractor with respondent No. 1 since 1969 and in 1972 he was enlisted as Class 1 Electrical Contractor and according to the petitioner, he bad executed various works of respondent No. 1 to the entire satisfaction of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 had invited tenders for the electrification work in the multistoreyed building to be constructed at Bhikaji Camaji Bhawan, R.K.Puram, in September 1984 and the petitioner being found the lowest tenderer Shri M,P. Gandhi, the then Superintending Engineer Incharge of the said Circle, had awarded the said contract although Shri S.K. Sinha, respondent <PG>347</PG> No. 4, who was then working as Executive Engineer, was not stated to be interested in awarding the work to the petitioner. The petitioner has pleaded that Shri S.K, Sinha had created many hindrances in the smooth progress of the said work yet the work was completed to the full satisfaction of the Superinrending Engineer who used to visit the site regularly and always was appreciative of the quality of work carried out by the petitioner. The petitioner also alleged that in respect of the said work Shri S.K. Sinha, Executive Engineer, did not make running payment for the work done in between the period October, 1984 to January 1985 and had also not made the payment with regard to the material stored at the site and the petitioner had written a letter dated November 15, 1984. in which, inter alia. the petitioner reiterated that in case Shri S K. Sinha did not believe in the quality of work being done by the petitioner and believe in something else be may recommend to the higher and competent authority for rescinding the contract. According to the petitioner, he received a reply from Shri S.K. Sinha dated November 17, 1984, mentioning that no payment would be made to the petitioner until the petitioner had signed a formal agreement. It was further pleaded in the writ petition that the Superintending Engineer, however, intervened and required Shri Sinha not to harass the contractor in this manner and as the harassment at the hands of Shri Sinha did not cease, thus, the Superintending Engineer transferred the said work from the charge of Shri S.K. Sinha to the charge of another Executive Engineer.

(3.) . It was also averred in the petition that in the year 1982 the petitioner had quoted two lenders for the works at Alaknanda and Kilokari and during the progress of the said works Shri S K. Sinha had harassed him of which the petitioner had complained vide letter dated December 5, 1984, but later on the said works were also transferred to some other Executive Engineer and the petitioner was saved from any further harassment at the hands of Shri.S.K.Shri but unfortunately in May 1984, Shri S.K. Sinha again look over the charge of the said works and harassment of the petitioner at the hands of Shri Sinha again revived and the same was evident from the letter dated December 5, 1984 According to the petitioner, he stopped giving any tender in respect of any works in the Division under the control of Shri S.K. Sinha, Then, the petitioner made reference to certain queries raised by Shri S.K.Sinha vide letter dated March 16, 1983, with regard to the validity of the electrical licence issued by the Delhi Administration and the list of works awarded to the petitioner by the Delhi Development Authority and the other Government organisations, a copy of reference from the bankers regarding financial capability of the petitioner, a list of skilled and unskilled workers with their experiences on the rolls of the petitioner and list of degree or diploma holder engineers in employment of the petitioner and copy of the balance sheet for the last three years and the list of works which allegedly left in complete by the petitioner or the works have been rescinded in the last three years. This particular letter was initially not received by the petitioner as the petitioner's office was found locked. Efforts were made to deliver the said letter and Shri S.K. Sinha had issued a threatening lettr dated April 4, 1983, that in case the petitioner did not collect the previous letter from his office then matter shall be referred to the Secretary, Contractors' Registration Board, Vikas Minar, New Delhi, for taking action against the petitioner. So, according to the petitioner, because of this hostile and adverse attitude of Shri S.K, Sinha towards it, the petitioner did not submit any tenders in Electrical Division No. III where Shri S.K. Sinha was working as the Executive Engineer. Petitioner has made reference to floating of two lenders in that Division and awarding of the works to respondent No. 5, who was the lowest tenderer, emphasising that no <PG>348</PG> queries were made from respondent No, 5 of the nature made from the petitioner by Shri S.K. Sinha.