KHURSHEED ALAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order dated 16-5-1991 (Annexure 1) whereby the Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation (R.E.O. for short), respondent No. 5 herein, has directed the Superintending Engineer, R.E.O. (respondent No. 6) to divide the work between the petitioner and Quasim Raza (respondent No. 8 herein). According to the petitioner, the aforesaid order is illegal, since he was allotted the work after inviting tenders and the order (Annexure 1) has been passed under political influence. He has, therefore, prayed that Annexure 1 be quashed and respondent No. 7 be restrained from acting in accordance therewith.

(2.) The facts of this case will disclose the, manner in which the governmental work of a routine nature is interfered with by politicians who bring all sorts of pressure on the officers of the government to act in a particular manner so as to confer favour on the person/ persons in whom they are interested. The practice has attained notoriety and must be stopped at any cost. When the political personalities get involved in such routine work of the Government, the concerned Minister is also pressurised into passing orders favouring one or the other person. This has resulted in complete demoralisation of the officers concerned and the continuance of such state of affairs is bound to adversely effect the functioning of the Government. While it is true that representatives of the public are bound to bring to the notice of the Government any deficiency or maladministration that may come to their notice, it is certainly not their function to interfere with the day to day working of the Government.

(3.) There is hardly any dispute about the facts of the case. They are as follows: An advertisement was issued inviting tenders for construction of a road from village Madarpur to village Jurari in the district of Munger. Several persons filed their tenders in response to the aforesaid advertisement published on 5-3-1991. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 8 were found to be the lowest tenderers, but since the petitioner was found to be senior to respondent No. 8 as a contractor, having regard to his date of registration, the Superintending Engineer (respondent No. 6) advised the Executive Engineer (respondent No. 7) to issue work order in favour of the petitioner, and to get the necessary agreement executed by him. Consequently, the Executive Engineer called the petitioner to his office to sign the agreement. The petitioner claims that he signed the agreement on 14-4-1991, and that the same was countersigned by the concerned authorities. His case is that respondent No. 8, Quasim Raza, persuaded one Mr. Ram Nath, M.L.A. to write a letter to the Chief Engineer requesting him to call for the file from the office of the Superintending Engineer. Accordingly, the Chief Engineer called for the file, but after a going through the same he directed the Superintending Engineer by Annexure 2 A dated 27-4-1991 to get the work done through the petitioner in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The same communication discloses that he called for a report on the letters of Sri Ram Nath Yadav, M.L.A. and Sri Sakuni Choudhary, M.L.A.