JAWAHAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) THE present application has been filed by the petitioner making a grievance that pursuant to notice inviting tender he had filed his tender. The tender had to be filed in two separate parts, one technical bid and the second financial bid. The date for opening technical bid was fixed. It was so opened in presence of the petitioner. Thereafter no date could be fixed for opening financial bid as steps in regard to approval and sanction were to take place.The petitioner did not know the date when financial bid would be opened. He has produced a notice issued by the department on 16.2.2006 informing the petitioner that financial bid would be opened on 18.2.2006. This notice was despatched on 16.2.2006 and received by the petitioner through post on 18.2.2006 i.e. after the date fixed for opening of the financial bid. The petitioner asserts that because of delay receipt of notice he could not appear and be present and as such his financial bid was not considered. He was not at fault. It is with this grievance the petitioner came to this court.

(3.) IN the present case the petitioner has specifically asserted that the date was fixed in such a manner so that other tenderers may not be in a position to appear. The tender papers having been opened, the rate was reduced. The allegation can only be denied by the respondents but the fact remains that Rule 160 of P.W.D. Code was flagrantly violated. The need is the transparency which was to be maintained in the decision making process was completely lost. Ordinarily this would have led to cancelling of the entire process including the agreement already entered into but in view of the fact that contract has been entered into and substantial works have been done, in these special facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in this matter. However, I may observe that decision making process was clearly vitiated. The petitioner was unfairly excluded. The petitioner has a genuine grievance but because of lapse of time and the contract works having been substantially executed he is not entitled to any relief in this discretionary jurisdiction.