RAMLAL TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for to call for the entire records and upon perusal of the same to quash the order dated 12-1-2001 contained in Annexure P-1 by which the tender submitted by the respondent No. 4 was accepted and further to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to allot the same in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts as have been undraped in the writ petition are that the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department (Land Acquisition and Re-habilitation Department), the respondent No. 3 herein, invited tender for the purpose of lying down the water supply in Modal Town near Mirgouti Satna. The date of closing of the tender was 9-11-2000 and the opening date was 16-11-2000. On the dale fixed, the tenders were opened and it was found that the tender of the petitioner was the second lowest and that of the respondent No. 4 was at the third. The tender of one Dharmendra Tiwari was found to be the lowest. Later on Dharmendra Tiwari moved an application for withdrawal of his name and accordingly his earnest money was forfeited. As a consequence of this the petitioner became the lowest tenderer. The amount quoted by the petitioner was Rs. 29,84,914. 00 whereas the amount quoted by the respondent No. 4 was Rs, 29,84,760. 00. It is averred that though the petitioner was the lowest tenderer, his tender was not accepted but the tender of the respondent No. 4 was considered and accepted. It has been pleaded that the earnest money of the petitioner has been forfeited without giving any opportunity of hearing. It has been stated that though there was recommen-'dation from higher authority for acceptance of the tender submitted by the petitioner but same was not done by the respondent No. 3. It is further putforth by the petitioner had never submitted any letter withdrawing his tender before any authority but on the other hand was willing to execute the agreement. According to the writ petitioner ignoring entire factual matrix the respondent No. 2, the Commissioner (Water Resources Department) accepted the tender of the respondent No. 4. It is urged that as per the provisions of PWD manual and M. P. Book of Financial Power the lowest tender has to be accepted. But the same has been rejected by the authority concerned in gross violation of law.

(3.) A return has been filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 contending, inter alia, that the notice inviting tender was issued on 12-10-2000 as per Annexure R-1 and later on the same was amended on 23-10-2000 and on 3-11-2000. The tenders wereopened on 16-11-2000. It is not disputed that the petitioner's tender was the second lowest and that of the respondent No. 4 was the third lowest. It has been pleaded that the offer of the petitioner has not been accepted as he is categorised in the registration certificate submitted by him as a contractor who is competent to execute the contract upto Rs. 25 lacs. It has been submitted that the offer made by him was more than 25 lacs. The registration certificate of the petitioner has been brought on record as Annexure R-3. In the Clause 2. 1 of the tender document it has been specifically provided that the contractor registered in the concerned office of the Water Resources Department of the State Government who has successfully executed the similar works would be eligible to be assigned the contract. An opportunity was granted to the petitioner to get himself registered in the appropriate class prior to the date of the agreement. The petitioner failed to get himself registered as a result of which the earnest money was forfeited. It has been putforth that as the petitioner did not avail the opportunity to get himself registered in the particular class the respondent had no option but to reject his offer. It has also been highlighted that the respondent No. 4 was agreed to execute the work at the same rate which had been quoted by the petitioner and, therefore, the contract was granted in his favour. It has also been pleaded that in pursuance of the agreement the respondent No. 4 has already completed the work assigned to him and the same is perceptible from the completion certificate dated 20-3-2001 as per Annexure R-7.