SUDHIR PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this writ application have challenged the mode and manner in which the tender notices were published as also the allotment of work with the private respondents by the Executive Officer, Rosera Municipality.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioners is that respondents Nos. 5 and 6, without publication of the tender notice, have allotted the work for construction and repairs of roads and drains worth Rs. 25,00,000 (Twenty five lakhs) with the private respondents. According to the petitioners, as notices were not published in the daily newspaper not they were affixed at conspicious places in the municipal area, several persons including the petitioners were excluded from filling up tenders and participating in the auction. The allegation of mala fide and favouritism against the official respondents in allotting the works to the private respondents has also been alleged. It has been urged that different Government circulars which are binding over the municipal authorities, have not been followed. It has been further stated that at the time of the alleged publication of notice, there was general strike. Therefore, even assuming that notices were displayed on the notice board of the Municipality, it was not expected for general public to have knowledge with respect to such publication. As per the circular, only those persons who had submitted Sales Tax and Income Tax clearance certificate were entitled to deposit tenders for allotment of work. Admittedly, the private respondents did not deposit such certificate. Therefore, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 should not have allotted the work to them.

(3.) The respondents have entered appearance and filed counter affidavits. According to them, all the prescribed procedures for allotment of work were followed. Written notices were given to the District Magistrate, Samastipur, District Engineer, Samastipur, Executive Officer, Sub-divisional Officer, Rosera, Secretary, Agricultural Produce Market, Block Development Officer and Circle Officer Rosera for publication on their respective notice boards in their offices. Notices were also published on the notice board of the Municipality. It is wrong to say that the construction work was allotted to the private respondents without inviting tenders. It has been stated that as per rule 116 of the Bihar Municipal Accounts Rules, 1928 (hereinafter called 'Rules'), the Municipality has two options to publish tender notices, that is, advertisement in the local newspapers or by notices in the vernacular in public places. It is stated that since the work was of urgent nature as also located in the Municipal area, the second mode of publication, that is, pasting of notices at public places was adopted. It has been further stated that most of the work had already been completed for which contractors have also been paid.