BASANT BAGDE Vs. HINDUSTAN PREFAB LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal arises out of the order of the learned single Judge dated 19th March, 2009. Briefly, stated the facts of the case are; the respondent No. 1 issued notice on 20th March, 2008 inviting sealed tenders for construction of houses with infrastructure in Raipur city. Under Clause 5 of the Special Conditions of Contract, the tenderer was required to quote rates on percentage basis below/at par/above the SOR of 1999. On 1st April, 2008, the competent authority amended the SOR of 1999 and increased the rate of item No. 8 of Chapter 4 (steel) from Rs. 24 per kg. to Rs. 50 per kg. As per the appellant( the original petitioner in the writ petition), the tender document stated that the bid was to be made on percentage basis of SOR of 1999 and its amendments are applicable for such tenders and, therefore, once an amendment of a scheduled item is made ipso facto same would apply to the tender in question.

(2.) ON 3rd April, 2008 the petitioner submitted its tender on percentage rate basis of SOR of 1999 after taking into account the amended rates. The respondent No. 1 entered into an agreement with the appellant at Delhi awarding 5 packages to the appellant. Pursuant to the award of the said contract the appellant commenced work. The appellant submitted its running account bill for the work executed on 18th September, 2008 to respondent No. 1. In the said bill the appellant while calculating the rate of steel took into account the rate of steel as amended on 1st April, 2008 by the competent authority. The respondent No. 1 vide its letter dated 18th September, 2008 refused to calculate the bill on the basis of the revised rates of steel on the ground that though the Engineer -in -Chief, Public Works Department, Chhattisgarh has left the decision to respondent No. 1 HPL with respect to implementation of the said revised rates, the same had not been done by HPL till date. Accordingly, as per the petitioner, it was left with no alternative but to file the writ petition out of which the present appeal arises.

(3.) THE learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant on the ground of alternative remedy as also on the ground that this High Court have no territorial jurisdiction. The learned single Judge while dismissing the writ petition imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/ - on the appellant.