SHRISTI DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LTD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE attempt of the petitioner, in this writ application, is to scuttle the grant of contract for improvement of riding quality of National Highway No. 83 from KM 2 to 10 awarded by respondent no. 4 the Chief Engineer to respondent no. 7 M/s Roy Construction.

(2.) THE Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, Dehri -On -Sone issued advertisement in daily newspaper dated 30.4.2001 (Annexure -3) inviting tenders for the aforesaid work at the estimated cost of Rs. 1,84,91,791/ -, for which the last date for submission of tenders was 10.5.2001. According to the tender notice, work was to be allocated to a contractor who possesses specified standard equipments as prescribed by the Surface Transport Department of the Government of India. Contractors were further required to possess computerised Hot Mix plant, paver, Road Roller, Bitumen Boiler, Bitumen Sprayer, Loader, Taper etc. in sufficient quantity. The tender notice further indicated that work shall be allocated to a contractor whose Hot Mix plant is within 40 KM from the place of the proposed work. Tenderers were further required to file recent Contract Registration Certificate, No Objection Certificate from the Commercial Taxes and the Income Tax Departments Character Certificate and current Labour Licence. In pursuance of the aforesaid tender notice, petitioner as also respondent no. 7, besides others, submitted their offers.

(3.) ON the basis of the information and the rates offered by the tenderers, a check -list was prepared. According to the check -list (Annexure -4), the rate of respondent no. 7 was 4 per cent above the estimated cost whereas that of the petitioner was 9 per cent above the estimated cost. As regards the plants and machineries, according to the check -list, respondent no. 7 possessed mini hot mix plant, road roller, whereas the petitioner possessed hot mix plant, Bitumen boiler, paver, loader and truck. In the check -list, against the column, commercial taxes registration and clearance certificate, nothing has been indicated against respondent no. 7. In the recommendation column of the check -list, the Executive Engineer has stated that in case the petitioner is prepared to reduce his rate to 4 per cent or below the estimated cost, work may be allocated to it. The recommendation of the Superintending Engineer is also in the same terms. However, the Chief Engineer in its recommendation, has stated that the work of establishment of plant by respondent no. 7, is close to the site but the same may take time. But there is no work load on the plant of the petitioner and Vikash Construction, another tenderer, but their offer is above 9 per cent of the estimated cost and as such, both may be called for discussion and be asked to submit their offers in sealed cover and work may be allocated to one of them whose offer is the lowest.