AMITABH TAMULI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B. D. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. R. Deka learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. I have also heard Mr. S. R. Baruah, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5. The work order dated 21.12.2018 awarding the contract in question in favour of the respondent No 5 is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) The facts of the case, in a nut shell, are that respondent No.3, i.e. the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Jorhat Road Circle, Jorhat had issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 01.08.2018 inviting bids for execution of as many as four works. The work of "Construction of RCC Drain and Cross Drain from New Balibat at Jorhat (L=256.50m) under City Infra Development Fund (CIDF) for the year 2018-19 in PWD, Jorhat State Road Division, Jorhat" at an estimated cost of Rs.63,72,000.00 was at serial no. 2 of the said NIT. In response to the NIT dated 01.08.2018, the writ petitioner and the respondent No.5 had submitted their bids for the work mentioned at Serial No.2 of the NIT. The tenders submitted by the writ petitioner and the respondent No 5 were found to be technically valid. Having quoted an amount of Rs.63,56,180.60 as against the sum of Rs.63,71,999.15 quoted by the respondent No.5, the writ petitioner had emerged as the lowest (L1) bidder. Notwithstanding the same, by the impugned order dated 21.12.2018, the respondent No.3 had awarded the work to the respondent No.5 at the rates quoted by the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondent No 5 was asked to deposit the Performance Security and sign the contract agreement. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.2018, the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 24.12.2018 before the respondent No.4 questioning the issuance of the work in favour of the respondent No.5. When the said representation had failed to evoke any favourable response from the respondent authorities, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

(3.) The respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 have filed counter-affidavits in their attempt to justify the decision to award the work to the respondent No 5. A perusal of the statements made in the counter- affidavits filed by the official respondents go to show that the petitioner was earlier allotted the work of "improvement of Post Office Road from Ch.00 to Ch.054 km under City Infra Development Fund (CIDF) for the year 2017-18" and the civil work executed by the petitioner was found to be of poor quality as a result of which, the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat i.e. the respondent No. 4 had to issue Show Cause Notice to the petitioner. It has also been mentioned that the TMT Bars used by the petitioner were tested at the Jorhat Engineering College and were found to have failed to achieve the acceptable limits.