RAJENDRA PRASAD PODDAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.07.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ application being CWJC No. 3840 of 2004 filed by the appellant challenging the decision of the tender committee dated 16.03.2004, communicated through letter dated 20.03.2004 issued by the Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna by which the tender committee decided to allot the work of construction on residual pucca road on top of Jhaua Dilli Diwanganj Mahananda Left Embankment from Chain No. 415 to 1018 to respondent no. 7-M/s. Narayan Das Construction Private Limited, Binodpur, Town and District Katihar.

(2.) Admitted facts are that tender was invited by the Executive Engineer, Flood Control Division, Salmari for the work mentioned above being Tender Notice No. 2/2003-2004. A copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ application. It is also admitted position that the State Government has issued a circular which is contained in Bihar Lok Nirman Lekha Sanhita. Paragraph 6(Ga) thereof provided that the contract less than 15% of the estimated cost shall be invalid and 15% should be counted after deducting the material which will be supplied by the department (Annexure 3 to the writ application). This provision was incorporated in Clause 12 of the Notice Inviting Tender (for short 'NIT') and in terms thereof it was provided therein that the cost of departmental material, if supplied for execution of works, will be recovered from contractor's bill as per the rates approved by the department. In the tender document (bill of quantity) the cost of bitumen was given in terms of the aforesaid provision but the quantity of material to be supplied was not given. At the time of pre-bid conference the same was also not explained as a result of which there was confusion as to whether the rate quoted by the tenderer will include the price of the materials to be supplied by the department or not and what criteria should be followed for deciding whether the rate quoted is below 15% or not.

(3.) The petitioner sought information from the Executive Engineer of the area which informed that 122 M.T. bitumen is likely to be supplied by the department and taking into consideration the said aspect of the matter, the appellant submitted his tender excluding the cost of materials supplied by the department. Respondent no. 7 however submitted tender including the cost of material to be supplied by the department.