PRAMOD NARAYAN SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing of Sub -clauses (Gha) and (Cha) of Special Condition No. 1 of the notice inviting tender dated 20th July, 2001, issued by the Executive Engineer, N.H. Works Division, Biharsharif, contained in Annexure 1, and has further sought for amendment/ modification in the said condition in the line of the notice inviting tender dated 5th June, 2001, issued by the same Executive Engineer for similar nature of contract work, contained in Annexure 3, and to allow him to participate in response to the impugned tender. Under Sub -clause (Gha) of the impugned tender, the tenderers are required to file certificate that in the last annual turnover of three years, the turnover for one year is of over three and half crores, certified by the Chartered Accountant and under Sub -clause (Cha), the tenderers are required to furnish the certificate from the rank of at least Executive Engineer that in the last three years he had the work experience of B.M. and S.D.C. by Paiver Finisher on National Highway Sub -Division/ Road Construction Department.

(2.) IN short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner claims to be a registered Class I -A Contractor carrying on its contract business in the respondent Department. The petitioner claims to possess sufficient equipment, plant and technical expert staff for properly running of its contract business and has been executing the road construction work in Bihar. According to the petitioner, Class I -A Contractor is eligible to take up works up to any amount as per the registration rules and regulations. The petitioner, being eligible for participation in response to the earlier tender notice dated 5 -6 -2001 (Annexure -3) which related to 'Widening and Improvement of N.H. 82 in K.M. 4 to 13' for an estimated cost of Rs. 1,49,45,636/ -, participated in the tender purchased bill of quantity and submitted his tender as there was no condition as inserted in Clauses (Gha) and (Cha) of the impugned tender notice.

(3.) MR Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents have put some unreasonable, made fide and irrational condition for eligibility of contract work with a view to prevent other Contractors like the petitioner from participating in the said tender and facilitate only favourable Contractors. According to the learned Counsel, sub -classification within Class I Contractor is not permissible and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution besides contrary to the prescribed standard, as contained in Annexure 4 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted that under revised Bihar Enlistment of Contractors Rules, 1992, the Contractors for execution of works are registered in different classes and Class I -S and I -A, both, which are at the top of the list of Contractors for registration, contained in Rule 2 of the said Rules, are qualified to tender for works up to Rs. 200.00 lakhs and, thus, the respondent authorities have clearly acted arbitrarily in treating the petitioner differently. Moreover, according to him, the Executive Engineer is not competent to insert the impugned conditions and as per Schedule of Delegation of Financial Powers to the Officers of Irrigation and Electricity Department, contained in Annexure A of P.W.D. Code, the State Government is the only competent authority to accord approval of any change.