SUMANGALAM JAGRITI Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD WITH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ applications have been heard together as they relate to the same matter. In the first writ application, the petitioner had challenged Annexure - 14, the communication dated 14.2.2007 of the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Darbhanga whereby pursuant to orders of the Bihar State Electricity Board, the two letter of intents issued in his favour were cancelled. The order of the Board is Annexure -D to the counter affidavit which gives the reason for cancellation and the reasons are communicated to the petitioner by Annexure -19 dated 2.3.2007. In the second writ petition, the petitioner therein challenges the issuance of letter of intent to the writ petitioner of the first writ application on the ground that he being the lowest tenderer and he having offered the lowest price, he ought to have been awarded the tender instead of the petitioner. A comprehensive counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent -Board in the first writ application which covers the dispute. With consent of parties, this writ application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

(2.) IT would be convenient to deal with the second writ petition first. The plea of the petitioner therein is that being the lowest tenderer, he ought to have been selected. In my view, that is not the law. Even though a person may be the lowest tenderer, the authorities could call parties to negotiate. Once parties are called for negotiation then the rates tendered by them looses its significance because then the tender has to be decided on the rates quoted in course of negotiation. I should not be misunderstood as saying that if no negotiations are called for, the authorities are bound to accept the lowest tender. Even where such a situation arises, the authorities could well be justified in not accepting the lowest tender for grounds which may be otherwise valid. In that view of the matter, there being no dispute that the parties were called for negotiation, the writ petitioner of the second writ application cannot succeed and the said writ application is to be dismissed as such. Now there is a common challenge by both the writ petitioners to the action of the respondent - Board in cancelling all the three letter of intents. Two were issued in favour of the petitioner of the first writ petition and one in favour of the writ petitioner of the second writ petition.

(3.) THE controversy appears as to the legality and propriety of the order of cancellation. The orders of cancellation are in fact contained in letter No. 157 dated 8.2.2007 (Annexure -D) of the Chief Engineer (RE) of the Board in relation to the writ petitioner.