DOLANG BINOD Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. G. Tarak, learned Counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5. None appears for respondent Nos. 6 to 11.

(2.) In the instant writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the manner in which the scrutiny of tenders and work order was made by the respondent authorities in favour of the private respondent No. 11. The short facts are that a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was issued on 17th March, 2009 by the District Project Director, SSA District Mission, Kurung Kumey District (hereinafter referred to as "District Director" only) for awarding work for construction of Residential Hostel Building for 50 students under SSA 2008-09 at P/Parlo Upper Primary School under Parsi Parlo Circle. The petitioner No. 1 is the President of Kurung Kumey District registered Contractor Association, a district unit of All Arunachal Registered Contractor Association and the petitioners No. 2 and 3 are proprietors of M/s. Regiaku Enterprise and M/s. B.A. Enterprises respectively. The petitioners No. 2 and 3 submitted tender papers but the Board rejected their tenders and recommended the tender of the private respondent No. 11 for finalization Accordingly, the Respondent-District Project Director accepted the tender of the private respondent No. 11 and intimated the same vide order No. ED/KK/SSA/CW-93/08-09 dated 31st March, 2009 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition).

(3.) Mr. Tarak, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that private respondent No. 11, Shri Lokam Nai and his brothers are not local residents of Parsi Parlo Circle and they are not eligible for offering tender as per the terms and conditions laid down in the NIT dated 17th March, 2009. The respondent authorities were pre-deter-mined to settle the work with the private respondent No. 11 on some extraneous considerations even before the NIT was issued for which he was allowed to deposit the earnest money amounting to Rs. 35,418/-by a Bank Draft on 24.2.2009 i.e. one month before the tender was floated. As per the NIT, an amount of Rs. 32,000/- is required to be deposited by the tenderers but the private respondent No. 11 had deposited more amount, that is an amount of Rs. 35,418/-. The tenders were opened on 28.3.2009 and the Board overlooked the aforesaid irregularities in the tender documents of the respondent No. 11, although, the same were pointed out to it and objection was raised before the members of the Board during the time of scrutiny of tender documents. According to the petitioners, the entire NIT proceeding was an eyewash. The Board illegally and arbitrarily rejected the land donation certificate furnished by petitioners and others and accepted the land donation certificate of private respondent No. 11 issued by the Village Education Committee (for short "VMC"), which is not the competent authority to issue such land donation certificate. It is further contended by the petitioners that the private respondent No. 11 constructed one wooden hall with tin roofing measuring about 10 metres near the school compound in the month of January, 2009 and February, 2009 i.e. before the work order was issued. The same was neither approved by the State Authority nor was it as per design and as such, it is evident that tender process was initiated only to legalise the aforesaid illegal construction and misuse of fund, which was allotted for construction of school hostel building.