ARWISHMARAK Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Miss A. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Anil Sarma, learned Addl AG, Meghalaya, assisted by Mrs B. Dutta, learned Govt Advocate, for the respondent Nos 1 and 2, Mr. SP Mahanta assisted by Mrs M. Wahlang, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Mr. K. Paul, learned counsel for the proforma respondent.

(2.) The respondent No.2 vide Memo No. EE (T) IRRI/TB39/2000-2001/ 43-55 dated 4.5.01, issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), from the registered contractors for construction of Anderkona Headwork including diversion work and approach road (excluding steel sluice gate), amounting to Rs. 1,20,35,000 (Rupees one crore twenty lakhs and thirty five thousand) only. In response to the said NIT eleven tenderers have submitted their tenders. The petitioner has submitted his tender at 21% above the Schedule of Rates for the year 1996- 97. The respondent No.3 also submitted his tender by quoting his rate at 3 8.40% above the said Schedule of Rates. The proforma respondent, submitted his tender at the rate of 19% above the Schedule of Rates. From amongst the tenderers who submitted their tenders, the proforma respondent has quoted the lowest rate of 19% above the Schedule of Rates (SOR). The petitioner is second lowest at the rate of 21 % above the SOR. However, the Work Order was allotted to the respondent No.3 who has quoted his rate at 38.40% and the work was allotted to the respondent No.3 at the 19% above the SOR. Aggrieved by the selection of respondent No.3, the petitioner has approached this Court by this writ petition.

(3.) The State-respondents did not file their affidavit-in-opposition but have produced all relevant records in original for perusal of this Court.