PYRKHATBHA SHABONG Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of the peculiar circumstances and inter-related facts, WP(C) No. 303 of 2016 and Cont. Cas (C) No. 7 of 2017 have been considered together and are taken up for disposal by this common order.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, relevant background aspects of the matter are as follows: The respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 herein issued a Detailed Notice Inviting Tender ("DNIT?) under Memo No. PW/TB/BR/SPV/37 dated 18.04.2016 for the work of "Improvement and beautification including M.B.T. of an approach road to tourist Guest House at Mawlyngbna (scheme funded under SPV)". It is noticed from the DNIT that the said work had been divided into four components as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_16_LAWS(MEGH)6_2017_1.html</FRM> <FRM>JUDGEMENT_16_LAWS(MEGH)6_2017_2.html</FRM>

(3.) The petitioner, had been one of the contractors who made the offer for execution of the component of work mentioned at Item No. 1 ibid., i.e., "Construction of Retaining Wall with RCC railing on approach road to Mawlyngbna View Point and Guest Houses" at the approximate value of Rs. 37,24,200.00 (Rupees thirty seven lakhs twenty four thousand two hundred). It is noticed that though several contractors submitted their offers for the work in question but all of them quoted the rates "at par?. However, after opening of the tenders, the Tender Committee purportedly bifurcated the said work of Item No. 1 into two parts, at the tender value of Rs. 18,62,100/- each; and allotted one part each to the respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 5 respectively. The petitioner felt aggrieved of such allocation of work to the respondents No. 4 and 5 and preferred this writ petition [WP(C) No. 303 of 201] after obtaining necessary information about the rates offered by the contractors and the decision taken by the State respondents.