KRISHNA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order contained in memo no. 1008 dt. 11.12.95 (Annexure 7), whereby the respondent authorities have prohibited the petitioner from lifting the materials which were subject matter of the tender and he was allowed to lift on the terms and conditions agreed upon. This writ petition is further directed against the order dated 1.6.96 (Annexure 8), issued by the respondent authorities seemingly in partial modification of the aforesaid order dt. 11.12.95 (Annexure 7), whereby the respondent authorities lifted the ban with respect to all the centres in the State of Bihar excepting that of Patna. The petitioner makes a further grievance that inspite of the said order dt. 1.6.98 (Annexure 8), the same has not been allowed to be implemented.

(2.) THE respondent authorities had issued a notice inviting tenders which had appeared in the local newspapers on 26.2.94 (Annexure 1), for purchase of rejected and scrap steels from various centres of the State of Bihar. The petitioner, along with others, had submitted their tenders which were opened on 18.3.94, and that of the petitioner was found to be the highest, was accepted and was communicated to him by letter contained in memo no. 149 dt. 21.8.95 (Annexure 3). In pursuance of this communication dt. 21.8.95, the petitioner started lifting the materials on deposit of requisite amount as per the rates quoted by him. While the petitioner was forging ahead with the lifting of materials, the respondent authorities passed the impugned order contained in memo no. 1008, dt. 11.12.95 (annexure 7), prohibiting the petitioner from lifting the materials in question until further orders. This order was modified by order dt. 1.6.96 (Annexure 8), whereby in partial modification of the said order dt. 11.12.95 (Annexure 7), the petitioner was allowed to lift the materials from all the centres in question all over the State excepting that of Patna. Thereafter the petitioner submitted various representations to allow him to lift the materials from Patna as well. He had also submitted that inspite of the order dated 1.6.96 (Annexure 8), the respondent authorities were not allowing him to lift the materials from centres other than Patna. Copies of such representations are on record.

(3.) MR . Suresh Kumar, learned JC to Mr. K.P. Yadav, SC V, who has made a feeble attempt to defend the impugned action, and has taken me through the counter affidavit. The counter affidavit states four reasons in support of the impugned action. Firstly, the Minister, Secretary and other functionaries of Public Health Engineering Deptt., Govt. of Bihar, had decided to stop further lifting of the materials. The counter affidavit secondly states that "...the tender will remain valid for acceptance and placing of order upto 30.12.94 from the date of receipt of tender." Thirdly, it further states that ".. if any dispute or difference arises in the interpretation of the specification, bill of quantity, Schedule of Prices or any other matter in connection with the contract, the decision of the Engineer -in -Chief -cum -Special Secretary, PHED, Bihar, Patna, shall be final and binding upon the parties concerned." The last reason stated in the counter affidavit is to the effect that the Cabinet