GANESH ELECTRIC STORES Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The refusal of the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the tender process pursuant to a NIT issued for works relating to external electrification of the new Central Jail at Sarusajai is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. '

(2.) The facts in brief may be noticed at the outset. A NIT was published on 3.12.2005 in all leading newspapers of the State inviting bids for the work of electrification in the premises of the new Central Jail at Sarusajai which is presently under construction. In terms of the NIT issued, applications for the bid documents were required to be submitted to the Additional Chief Engineer, P.W.D. (Electrical) on or before 9.12.2005. The NIT dated 3.12.2005 contemplated a pre-bid meeting to be held on 16.12.2005 for purposes of clarification, if any, that may be sought by intending tenderers; submission of the bids on or before 20.12.2005 and the opening of the bids received on the same date at 14.15 hours in presence of the bidders or their authorized representatives. The petitioner applied in writing for a set of bid documents on the date of the issuance of the tender notice itself i.e. 3.12.2005. The Additional Chief Engineer, P.W.D. (Electrical) by his letter dated 8.12.2005, informed the petitioner that as two police cases namely Chandmari P.S. Case No. 293/2005 and Chandmari P.S. Case No. 302/2005 have been registered against the petitioner, the Government of Assam in the Public Works Department had taken a decision not to issue any tender papers or work order to the petitioner-firm until finalization of the cases. Admittedly and evidently the said decision was taken without issuing any notice or giving any opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner unsuccessfully tried to persuade the authority to alter its stand in the matter and having failed to do so, has instituted the present writ proceeding calling into question the decision of the respondents not to issue any tender papars to the petitioner and for an appropriate direction to that effect.

(3.) In the pleadings contained in the writ petition read with the documents appended thereto, the writ petitioner has stated that Chiandmari P.S. Case No. 293/2005 and Chandmari P.S. Case No. 302/2005 have been registered against the petitioner on an allegation of submission of false/fabricated National Savings Certificates of Rs. 82,000/-, 90,000/- and 97,000/- (totaling Rs. 2,69,000/-) in respect of the tenders submitted by the petitioner for electrification works of the 100 Bedded Hospital at Sonari, Tinsukia Jail and the proposed Additional Building of the Gauhati High Court. According to the petitioner, he had paid the value of the NSCs submitted by him in connection with the aforesaid works to one Bhadra Baruah who is a Junior Engineer in the department and who was entrusted with the task of obtaining the NSCs from the post office. However, the aforesaid Bhadra Baruah along with some officers of the Department including the respondent No. 3 i.e. the Additional Chief Engineer, P.W.D. (Electrical), Assam, entered into a criminal conspiracy to involve the petitiomer in a false and fabricated case, which the petitioner contends was done to further the interest of the competitors of the petitioner who are the blue eyed contractors of the Department. The said stand of the petitioner is apparent from a FIR filed by the petitioner, again, with the Chandmari Police Station on 8.10.2005. It must be noticed at this stage that on the basis of the aforesaid FIR dated 8.10.2005, Chandmari P.S. Case No. 340/ 2005 under Sections 120(B)/406/420/467/ 468, IPC has been registered. In the above facts, the case projected in the writ petition is that the order dated 8.12.2005 passed by the respondent No. 3 refusing to furnish to the petitioner-firm the tender papers pursuant to the NIT dated 3.12.2005 amounts to blacklisting the petitioner-firm which action could not have been resorted to by the respondents without giving the petitioner-firm an opportunity. As no such opportunity was granted, the actions of the authority, as aforesaid, have been contended to be in violation of the principles of natural justice. In the writ petition filed, the petitioner has also sought to make out a case of malafide on the part of the respondent No. 3 who being one of the accused persons in Chandmari P.S. Case No. 340/2005 registered on the basis of the FIR dated 8.10.2005 filed by the petitioner, it is contended that the said respondent No. 3 was actuated by bias and malafide intent in taking the decision not to issue any tender papers; to the petitioner-firm.