NAVNEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF HP AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:

(2.) Briefly stated facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that the petitioner is a registered 'A' class contractor duly registered with respondent PWD. Petitioner in the capacity of 'A' class contractor has been executing various works of considerable amounts with the respondents. Vide Annexure P -1, respondent No. 2 invited tenders for periodical maintenance of various roads. Pursuant to the aforesaid tender notice, petitioner also participated in the work known as Thakurdwara Chowki Khalet Morla Phatta Chadrehar Harizen Basti Road Km. 0/0 to

(3.) /995 (SW: earth filling, passing places, retaining walls, breast walls, CD work and parapets in Km.0/0 to 3/995). It also emerges from the pleadings that apart from petitioner, two other contractors namely Sanjeev Dadwal and Suresh Patyal also participated in the above tender. As per averments contained in the petition, petitioner was found to be lowest and accordingly, he was awarded the work (supra). Since the rates quoted by the petitioner were found to be lowest, he was called for negotiation on 11.1.2008 by the respondent department. However, negotiations could not be held on the given date for the reasons best known to the respondents. The petitioner has stated in the petition that he repeatedly inquired about the awarding of tender in which he was found lowest one but no reason whatsoever was assigned, however, petitioner applied for the documents under the Right of Information Act (RTI) vide application dated 23.7.2008 (Annexure P -2). He received a letter dated 7.8.2008 from respondent No. 4 intimating therein that tender dated 3.9.2007 qua the work namely Thakurdwara Chowki Khalet Morla Phatta Chadrehar Harizen Basti Road Km. 0/0 to 3/995 (SW: earth filling, passing places, retaining walls, breast walls, CD work and parapets in Km.0/0 to 3/995) allotted to the petitioner, has been received unapproved in view of the decision taken by the Scrutiny Committee chaired by the Engineer -in -Chief on 8.4.2008 (AnnexureP -3). Petitioner also submitted that vide communication dated 25.2.2008, work had already been accorded/awarded by respondent No.3, which was further approved by respondent No. 3. Petitioner also averred that after the Assembly Elections in December, 2007, with the change in the Government, certain people who had vested interest, managed to get the tender recalled in an arbitrary manner against the recognized principle of law. Tenders were scrutinized in the office of respondent No. 2 on 14.3.2008, wherein decision was taken to call the petitioner for negotiations, since the rates quoted by the petitioner were found to be on the higher Side (AnnexureP -5). Meeting of the scrutiny committee chaired by respondent No. 2 was held on 8.4.2008 wherein decision with regard to work in question was taken and work awarded to the petitioner was not approved. It is also alleged in the petition that despite there being specific prayer for supplying the proceedings/minutes of the meeting of the scrutiny committee dated 8.4.2008, no information whatsoever was supplied to him. 3. Petitioner by way of present petition challenged action of the respondents, wherein decision was taken to recall the tender. It is specifically averred in the petition that decision to recall the tender has actually effected at the instance of certain vested interests and same is a politically motivated one. Petitioner averred that 29 numbers of the tender cases were scrutinized by respondent No. 3 in the meeting of scrutiny committee but he was singled out that too without any reason. Petitioner contended that once his rates were found to be the lowest one and he was awarded work, it could not be cancelled without assigning any reasons. Moreover, in the instant case, where the petitioner was called for negotiations but for the reasons best known to the respondents, no negotiation proceedings were held. Petitioner specifically alleged that aforesaid decision was taken by the respondents to please some vested interest, who are influential persons. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, respondents filed reply to the petition, wherein in Para -3, it was held as under: -