BANSIDHAR CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD. Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging letter no. 4475(E) dated 22.10.2010, so far it relates to the petitioner, by which the Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna declared 59 contractors including the petitioner as defaulter and debarred them from participating in any notice inviting tender in any of the works department and for quashing office order bearing memo no. 487 dated 17.4.2009 (Annexure-2) by which the Executive Engineer, Sahabad Road Division, Ara debarred the petitioner from participating in any tender in Sahabad Road Division, Ara and also for quashing office order bearing memo no. 908 dated 26.6.2009 by which Executive Engineer, Patna City Road Division, Patna debarred the petitioner from participating in any tender in the said division and further for directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the NIT of works department of the State Government with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and was a registered Class-I contractor bearing Registration No. 11 of 2007 (Road) dated 25.6.2007 and in response to the notice inviting tender of 2007 issued by Executive Engineer, Sahabad Road Division, Ara for widening and strengthening of Ara-Ekauna-Khaira-Sahar Road and other connected works, the petitioner submitted his tender alongwith documents and on 26.11.2007 he agreed to execute item no. 2 of the works, namely widening and strengthening of Ara-Ekauna-Khaira-Sahar Road from K. Ms. 19 to 35 for the year 2007-08 on schedule rate, whereafter work order was issued by the Executive Engineer in favour of the petitioner on 12.2.2008 and agreement was executed between the parties on 5.2.2008 for the aforesaid works at the cost of Rs. 12,35,93,460.00 vide Agreement No. 21 S.B.D. /07-08 in which the date of completion of work was 11.8.2009 (18 months).

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that both the parties had also signed Standard Bidding Document which contained the terms of contract, Clause 10(C) of which provided that the respondents shall make payment on account of increase in price of materials/wages due to the statutory orders and hence when the price of material/wages escalated on 24.3.2008 and 1.4.2009 after issuance of work order dated 12.2.2008 and the RCD made the schedule of rates effective from the aforesaid dates, the petitioner claimed payment at the said rate under Clause 10(C) of the terms of the contract as he had purchased the materials and paid wages on the escalated rates, but the claim of the petitioner was never settled.