Z. RULHO Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decision making process of settlement of a contract for construction of District Judicial Court Building. Mokokchung (Ground floor) at Mokokchung in favour of the private respondent No.5 by order dated 19-6-2013 followed by work order dated 25-6-2013 has been challenged in this application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) This writ petition being the third in the series of litigations regarding same contract work resulting in stalling of the work for a period over two years last against public interest, it is necessary to state the background facts at the thresh hold. Pursuant to an NIT issued in the month of March, 2011 by the Executive Engineer, CAWD, Office of the Commissioner, Nagaland for construction of District Judicial Court Building at Mokokchung Town the present petitioner (Sri. Z. Zulho), the private respondent No.5 (M/s. Allied Construction) and another submitted sealed tenders. While the tender papers of the petitioner and the respondent No.5 were found in order, the same of the third bidder was found to be defective and as such he was disqualified. Both the petitioner and the respondent No.5 quoted same rate at par with the SOR 2010. Thereafter, the authority by order dated 28-7-2011 conveyed approval for settlement in favour of the petitioner and consequently a work order was issued in his favour on 12-8-2011. The said settlement of contract in favour of the petitioner was challenged by the present respondent No.5 before this Court in WP. (C) No. 206/2011 and this Court by order dated 25-11-2011 quashed the said settlement with a direction to the Law Department for taking a fresh decision in the 'matter of awarding the contract for construction of the aforesaid building pursuant to the aforesaid NIT issued, by inviting both the petitioner and the respondent No. 6 therein for negotiation.' The respondent No. 6 referred to above was the writ petitioner in the present writ petition.

(3.) However, after the matter went back to the government for reconsideration by way of negotiation, the Parliamentary Secretary of the government interfered and allegedly at his instance, this time also the settlement was made in favour of the present petitioner. So, the present respondent No.5, as petitioner, filed the second writ petition before this Court challenging the decision vide W.P. (C) No. 53(K)/2012. In the said writ petition, the Government is also stated to have filed a Misc. Case being CMC No. 30 (K)/ 2012 seeking permission to issue fresh tender. However, this Court by the judgment and order dated 12-3-2012 asked the Government to abide by the previous order of this Court and to take up the matter by the Law Department for negotiation with the parties. In the same judgment, it was observed that in spite of specific direction by this Court to the Law Department in the earlier judgment dated 25-11-2011, the Law Department did not hold any negotiation and that negotiation, if any, was really held by the Parliamentary Secretary and as such said exercise was not in compliance of the order of this Court. The writ petition was accordingly allowed on 12-3-2012. This time after receipt of the second judgment of this Court, the Principal Secretary in the Department of Law invited the parties to his chamber for holding negotiation on 28-3-2012 wherein both the petitioner and the respondent No.5 are stated to have been present.