NATIONAL CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-court appeal is filed by the respondent No.5 in the Writ Petition No.11(K)/2013 under Rule 2(3) of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules against the judgment and order dated 26.8.2013, allowing the writ petition and setting aside the work order dated 10.12.2012 issued by the Chief Engineer, Police Engineering Branch, Nagaland, Kohima (respondent No. 3) in favour of the appellant for construction of permanent Headquarter for 15th NAP(IR) Mahila Ba, at Mpetsa (Construction of approach roads, Firing Range, Play Ground and Providing water supply system at Mpetsa) Gr-'A', with a further direction to the State respondents to allot the work in question to the best tenderer out of the rest of the tenderers.

(2.) The work order in question in favour of respondent No.5/appellant was issued pursuant to a tender notice dated 04.10.2012 issued by the respondent No.3 inviting sealed tenders from Class-1 registered contractors of Nagaland PWD and fixing 1300 hours on 06.11.2012 as the time and date up to which tenders would be received in respect of two items of works including the work in question. It was also indicated that tenders would be opened at 1330 hours on 06.11.2012. The estimated cost for the work in question was projected at Rs.5,27,49,500.00 and time for completion was indicated as 18 months. The tender notice contained certain terms and conditions and Clause -13 of the tender notice required the tenderers to produce the latest Income Tax Clearance Certificate. It was provided that tenders which were not accompanied with earnest money would summarily be rejected. Further stipulation in the tender notice was that any failure on the part of the contractors to comply with the tender conditions would entail summary rejection of the tender.

(3.) The pleaded case of the writ petitioners, three in number, in the writ petition is that they submitted their tenders along with four others including the respondent No.5/appellant. After the tenders were opened, same were scrutinized by the Tender Committee in presence of some of the tenderers including the petitioners. Respondent No.5 was not present and finding that the respondent No.5 did not enclose the Income Tax Clearance Certificate, its tender was disqualified and at the same time, tenders of the petitioners were found to be valid. It is pleaded that, however, it was found that the work order was issued on 10.12.2012 arbitrarily and illegally in favour of the disqualified tenderer, namely, the respondent No.5. The copy of the work order, however, could be collected by the writ petitioners with lot of difficulties only in the 3rd week of February, 2013 as the same was kept secret.