AVINASH KUMAR MOHAN, SON OF SHRI MAHESH KUMAR MOHAN, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MALLIK SARAI, P.O. & P.S. ISLAMPUR, DISTRICT NALANDA (BIHAR) BEING THE DIRECTOR OF JAI OM ENGICON PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MALLIK SARAI, NALANDA (BIHAR) Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondents.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for a direction to the Respondents to make payment towards excess work done by the petitioner on instructions of the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Division No. 2, Hilsa in connection with notice inviting tender No. 08/2010-11, as well as for directing for an exhaustive and impartial enquiry by an independent agency for the irregularities committed in connection with the said tender.

(3.) It is submitted by the petitioner appearing in person, that pursuant to the newspaper advertisement inviting tenders for repairing work of Islampur Nishchalganj Road - Bishunpur More Bishunpur - Ranipur - Mundipur More at an estimated cost of Rs. 9,87,745.00 requiring completion by 20.03.011,the petitioner successfully participated in the said tender and Agreement No. 80F2/10-11 came to be executed on 05.03.2011 between the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Division, Hilsa (Respondent No. 8) and the petitioner and the work order was issued on 07.03.2011. It is submitted that a substantial amount of work had progressed and payment of Rs. 1,37, 471.00 was made to the petitioner on 26.03.2011 but, however, the petitioner was directed to stop work with an ulterior motive despite delivery of materials such as Emulsion and Bitumen had been made involving considerable investment by the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner was even got arrested on 31.03.2011 in a false cause of embezzlement in which he is said to have manipulated the amount appearing on the cheque issued by the Executive Engineer, DUDA, resulting in the petitioner being in custody for about two and half months. It is submitted that even the measurement book relating to the work was manipulated and contains various cuttings and over writings and for which he wrote several representations but to no avail. Despite requests, proper investigation of the same was not made, rather the respondents proceeded to issue fresh advertisement at an exorbitant tender cost of Rs. 183.071 lakhs and the work was finally allotted to another person who started the work in the month of July, 2012 and completed sometime in the year 2014. Pursuant to the petitioner's representation dated 19.08.2013 before the Chief Minister, a vigilance enquiry was conducted by the Technical Examination Cell which admittedly culminated in an enquiry report dated 21.10.2014. It is submitted that the vigilance enquiry report itself suffers from obvious errors of record. By way of illustration, an observation in para 5.4.1 has been made that during currency of an agreement, the work cannot be re-allotted. The petitioner's agreement is wrongly stated to have been terminated on 04.03.2012 as the agreement was in fact closed on 06.03.2013 (Annexure-17), whereas the work had already been re-allotted prior thereto in terms of an Agreement dated 14.12.2012 in favour of M/s. Sandhya Samrat Company Pvt. Ltd., Hilsa. The mala fide action of the respondents is thus writ large on the face of it as without terminating the petitioner's agreement, the work has been re-allotted to another person at an exorbitantly escalated cost over what had originally been contemplated, the completion period of which was also extended over a period of two years as against two weeks within which the petitioner was required to complete the work. It is submitted that even a perusal of the measurement book discloses obvious over writings and manipulation, more particularly by insertion of decimal points in the middle of numeric figures used as a device to reduce the measurement figures to a fraction of their original value. It is submitted that the respondents have acted mala fide and have connived to deprive the petitioner of his legitimate dues for the work done such as the following:-