HES INFRA PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ applications have been filed by the same petitioner seeking common kind of directions upon the respondents Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited, an instrumentality of the State. The petitioner is seeking a direction that the Corporation should be directed to award the work of construction of certain bridges on the basis of the negotiated settlement reached between the parties and the action of the respondent Corporation to go for a re-tender ought to be interfered with, if not quashed. A notice inviting tender was issued by the respondent Corporation dated 18.2.2010 for construction of a bridge over river Ganges linking two districts of Arrah with Chapra and another over river Kosi at what is known as Vijay Ghat in the district of Bhagalpur. Both these bridges have significance for the residents of the area. It is a kind of prestigious project for the State of Bihar having a substantial outlay of resources on the two bridges. NIT begot responses from the interested parties. Tenders were filled up but it so happened that at least four of the other participants suffered disqualification for one reason or the other. All those details are not required to be looked into or recorded looking at the nature of the relief which have been prayed for by the petitioner. The outcome of the exercise pursuant to the NIT was that the respondent Bridge Corporation was left with only one valid tender in all respect and that is of the petitioner for both the projects.

(2.) It seems that there was some deliberations on this issue amongst the Tender Committee of the respondent Corporation taking the basic fact that there was only one tenderer and it was only his rate available to the Bridge Corporation to deliberate. From the pleadings it is evident that the respondents authorities decided to proceed with the single tenderer, invited the petitioner for negotiation, deliberations were made at various levels and a kind of negotiated settlement according to the petitioner was reached. The petitioner offered to beat down his price on the basis of such a negotiation but it was not a final decision as no order was passed or proposed to award the work. The matter was stopped in its tracks.

(3.) The outcome of the exercise with regard to this tender was placed before the Board of Directors of the Bridge Corporation. The Board of Directors were of the considered opinion that the nature of the award of contract being such which is on a Turn-key basis (design and building). The basic price indicated in the notice inviting tender was a tentative price and in absence of any other rate being available, the respondent Corporation is not in a position to judge whether they have got the best bargain for implementation of these two projects. They decided, therefore, to go for re-tendering to generate better competition amongst the tenderers and to enable the Corporation to get the best price for the two tenders. The details of the decision of the Board of Directors have been brought on record in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Corporation.