NGAIRANGBAM SOMORENDRO SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, in this writ application, prays for quashing the work order dated 11.6.2013 for Package No. MNO 685 issued in favour of respondent No. 3 in Annexure -A/10 and also prays for issuing work order in his favour.

(2.) IT is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner is a Sub -Contractor working under one, Nehkhothang Haokip and the said Nehkhothang Haokip is a Special Class Contractor executing works under the PWD Manipur. The respondent No. 2 published a notice inviting tender for execution of certain works under Phase - VIII of Pradhan Mantri Gram Sarak Yozna (for short 'PMGSY') spread into 50 packages. The said Nehkhothang Haokip had submitted tender in respect of MNO 685 apart from other contractors. After evaluation, the respondent No. 3 was found to be the lowest bidder and Shri Nehkhothang Haokip was found to be the second lowest bidder. Accordingly, work order has been issued in favour of the respondent No. 3. Challenging the said work order issued in favour of the respondent No. 3 in Annexure -A/10 dt. 11.6.2013, this writ application has been filed by the petitioner who claims to be the power of attorney holder of Nehkhothang Haokip.

(3.) SHRI M. Devananda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on clause 4.7 of the tender condition and submitted that admittedly the date on which the respondent No. 3 submitted his tender for the package No. MNO -685 a vigilance enquiry was in process against him and he had a litigation history. According to the learned counsel under clause 4.7 of the tender condition, the respondent No. 3 was disqualified to submit any tender and accordingly tender submitted by him could not have been entertained by the respondent No. 2. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that the vigilance enquiry was closed in favour of the respondent No. 3 only after filing of the writ petition and therefore the said respondent No. 3 cannot take advantage of closer of the enquiry, as on the date of submission of tender, the vigilance enquiry was continuing against him.