THE INFRASTRUCTURE CONSULTANT ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS (ICEAP) A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM, THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR NAMELY SANDHYA RAI DAUGHTER OF SRI A.N. RAI HAVING ITS OFFICE AT FLAT NO. 902, BLOCK 17, EAST END APARTMENT, MAYUR VIHAR PHASE Vs. THE BIHAR RAJYA POOL NIRMAN NIGAM LTD., THROUGH OTS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 7, SARDAR PATEL MARG, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General No.1 appearing for the respondents.

(2.) Both the writ applications filed by the same petitioner are interconnected in the sense that the order of debarment dated 18.12.2012 under challenge in CWJC No.376 of 2013 has resulted in the petitioner's tender not being considered in the fresh tender notice which is the subject matter of the second writ petition being CWJC No.378 of 2013 and they have accordingly been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(3.) The petitioner claims to be a consultant duly empanelled with the Ministry of Road Transport and Highway, Government of India since 2007 and has been working for several Government organisations of different States, such as, Rajasthan, Haryana and Union Territory of Delhi to their full satisfaction. The petitioner entered into an agreement dated 2.12.2010 with the respondent Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd. for a period of two years and the said agreement expired on 1.12.2012. It is the stand of the petitioner that the agreement signed between the parties was of five pages only and apart from the same nothing else was contained in the said contract although there is reference to General Conditions of Contract (GC), Special Conditions of Contract (SC) and other Appendices which have been treated as integral part of the contract. It is stated that the petitioner during its tenure of working as consultant for quality assurance had been pointing out from time to time to the respondents and their officers with regard to non-discharge of their duties and obligations which were essential for the quality of the bridge and it's strength and which were necessarily required to be observed as per IRC Code which had displeased the respondents. After the expiry of the agreement on 1.12.2012 the petitioner received a letter dated 18.12.2012 which was signed on 13.12.2012 by which it had been debarred from working as consultant with the respondents in terms of Clause 7.4.2 of the contract referring to earlier letters dated 9.7.2012, 6.8.2012 and 5.10.2012 and the alleged default found in the reports of May, June and July, 2012 which was not rectified and further non-supply of the monthly report from July, 2012 to Oct., 2012 as also the lacuna found in the laboratory with respect to men and equipments on inspection made on 24.7.2012. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed CWJC No. 376 of 2013 challenging the debarment order.