SIDHARTHA KALITA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a fight between the petitioners and the Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 with regard to allotment of some road repairing works. The brief factual matrix is as follows : Some money was sanctioned by the Central Government i.e. Ministry of Surface Transport, Union of India for improvement of road. The Administrative approval for improvement of Kamalpur-Morrowa road was accorded by the authority vide letter dated 9-2-2001 and accordingly the Chief Engineer, PWD directed the Executive Engineer, PWD, Rangia Road Division to invite tenders for allotment of works. Thereafter tender notice was issued on 15-2-2001 and the copy of this tender notice was sent to the Director of Information and Public Relation, Assam for arranging publication in two regional Newspaper (one in English and other in Assamese) on or before 8-3-2001 and there was a further request that the bill may be sent to the Executive Engineer for payment. Copy of the tender notice was also sent to the Chief Engineer, PWD, Roads, Assam, Chandmari for information. It was also sent to the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Nalbari Road Circle. A copy of the tender notice was also placed in the Notice Board on the date of issue i.e. on 15-2-2001. In terms of the request made by the Executive Engineer for publication of the tender notice, the Director of Information and Public Relation did not arrange for publication of the notice in the two regional Newspapers, one in English and other in Assamese, but it was published only in one issue of News Front on 4-3-2001. Thereafter tenders were received and a comparative statement was prepared by the Executive Engineer and along with the comparative statement the tenders received were sent to the Chief Engineer and work was allotted to five persons i.e. Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 and other two persons who are not made parties in this writ application. The work was divided amongst five persons groupwise. Thereafter work orders were issued in favour of these five persons and 30% of the work by now is claimed to be completed.

(2.) This Writ Application was filed on 26-3-2001 and was moved on 29-3-2001. No interim order was passed. As against the refusal to pass any interim order a Writ Appeal was filed being Writ Appeal No. 109/2001 and the Writ Appeal was dismissed with the observation that the learned single Judge is requested to finally dispose of the writ petition in the week commencing 9/04/2001. Though, I was not inclined to take up the matter as it is a case of 2001 and it is a fight between two private parties, yet, at the request of the learned counsel for the parties I decided to take up the matter. I have heard Mr. KN Choudhury, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. AK Phookan, learned Advocate for the Respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 and Mr. TC Chutia, for the Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Mr. Chutia has produced before me the photocopies of the record and they are placed in the case file.

(3.) Mr. KN Choudhury, learned Advocate for the petitioners makes the following submissions : (1) that there was no due publication of the notice inviting tenders and it was not placed on the Notice Board or in Newspaper as required under Rule 254 of the Assam Financial Rules and as such, the allotment of the work is illegal. (2) that the Executive Engineer, PWD, Rangia Road Division allotted the work arbitrarily without following any procedure. This contention requires no discussion inasmuch as from the record it is found that the Executive Engineer did not allot the work. The work was allotted by the Chief Engineer and that is within his power and competency. The 3rd submission of Mr. Choudhury is that that the Executive Engineer had no jurisdiction to invite or accept tenders beyond Rs. 2 lakhs. As I have indicated above, this is also factually incorrect inasmuch as tender was invited by the Executive Engineer and it was accepted by the Chief Engineer and he invited tender only as instructed/authorized by the Chief Engineer as is seen from the record of the case. He did not invite tender on his own behalf. The 4th submission of Mr. Choudhury is that the whole action of the authority is arbitrary and as such the same are liable to be quashed.