(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved by conditions as contained in Annexures P-II and P-III. Annexurewise these conditions are extracted below:
(2.) Above conditions could not have been put in the notice inviting tenders issued by the concerned Respondent. This clause being arbitrary unjust and illegal tantamounts to creating monopoly in favour of cartel of contractors and thus public interest suffers as a direct consequence of it. By referring to Annexure P-IV it was stated that the conditions like those in P-II and P-III supra were not incorporated by the Respondents, as such action of the Respondents regarding incorporation of the aforesaid conditions deserves to be struck down. In the absence of there being any policy guidelines etc. for inviting tenders for construction of roads under Prime Minister Grameen Sarak Yojna, hereinafter referred to as the Yojna, normal rules and regulations governing the contracts by H.P.P.W.D. will apply, wherein there is no such condition. Thus the writ needs to be allowed and condition supra in notices Annexures P-II and P-III quashed.
(3.) It was not disputed on behalf of the Respondents that Petitioner is a registered 'A' Class Contractor with HP P.W.D., thus he is entitled to bid in response to notices inviting' tenders upto any extent. Therefore, denial of tender documents to him on the basis of conditions (supra) in response to Annexures P-II and P-III is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and be declared to be so. These conditions were otherwise bad because no other object was sought to be achieved except for allowing the work to be allotted at abnormally higher rates, that too, to some favourites. By referring to the instructions contained in the provisions for the registration of contractors in Himachal Pradesh, P.W.D., learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the so called pre-qualification mentioned in the aforesaid conditions cannot be upheld and may be struck down. Further these conditions were never incorporated by the appropriate authority and Executive Engineer concerned had no jurisdiction to have issued any such tender incorporating those. By referring to documents placed on the file by the Respondents alongwith their reply, it was also urged that no benefit can be derived from those. Because those were not published in the name of Governor and in the same manner as notice was published.