GHANSHYAM LAL THROUGH ITS MANAGING PARTNER G L MADHOGARIA @ GHANSHYAM LAL MADHOGARIA SON OF LATE LAXMI NARAYAN MADHOGARIA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this case the petitioner is challenging the order dated 28.9.2016 passed by the Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna, whereby and whereunder, it has been recorded that the case of M/s Vishal Builtech (l) Pvt. Ltd. is different to the present petitioner. It has also been recorded, no material has been produced to wipe out the charges made against the petitioner rather only tried to show, both the cases are identical, inasmuch as, the case is bereft of any material evidence, thereby, vide Memo No. 3487 (E) dated 18.5.2016, the Secretary, Road Construction Department affirmed the order passed by the Engineer-in-Chief cum Additional Secretary cum Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, who has also recorded a finding that there is a substantial difference in the case of the petitioner vis-à-vis the case of M/s Vishal Builtech (l) Pvt. Ltd.

(2.) This case has a chequered history as for 3 to 4 times, the same issue raised in this case came for consideration before this Court. Before dealing with the matter, it will be relevant to examine background facts of this case and the findings in different proceeding recorded from time to time relating to the present dispute.

(3.) The Government of Bihar has floated a tender Notice Inviting Tender (N.I.T.) dated 29.12.2008 for the I.R.Q.P. and Cross Drainage and Road Saving Work of Narayanpur Chock (N.H.-57) Jhilla Shahpur-Prithvipatti-Chhitahi- Satanpatti- Sahtola- Pandit TolaJagdish-Karjain Bazar (N.H.-106) in K.M. 1 to 7, 8(p), 10 to 13, 14(p), 15(p), 16 to 21 and 22(p), Total 19.92 K.M. In response to the notice, the petitioner and three other Contractors submitted their tender in two sealed packets, one for technical bid and another for the financial bid. As per the standard norms, the technical bid, with respect to that work, was opened and after scrutiny, the petitioner and M/s Vishal Builtech (l) Pvt. Ltd. were declared successful in the technical bid. In the financial bid, the petitioner succeeded in run, as being the lowest tenderer, was found most responsive, was selected. The Executive Engineer, vide letter dated 15.2.2009, recommended for the allotment of work to the petitioner whereupon M/s Vishal Builtech (l) Pvt. Ltd., a rival contractor, could not get success, made a complaint to the authority that the petitioner has manipulated the tender document, whereupon, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 5.5.2009. The petitioner filed his show-cause on 18.5.2009 which was described as preliminary show-cause, reserved his right to submit final reply on receipt of the desired document. The petitioner was not supplied the document but, by letter contained in Memo No. 1940(E) dated 5.6.2009, the respondent gave liberty to inspect the documents lying in the office, on the same day vide letter dated 15.6.2009, requested the Engineer-in-Chief to supply document as he can not make an inspection as he was suffering from illness. While the matter was pending, in the meanwhile, without refunding the earnest money and without assigning any reason, the respondent published fresh Notice Inviting Tender (N.I.T.) for the same work on 8.6.2009 in which the petitioner was found to be lowest tenderer. The petitioner approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7126 of 2009 challenged the advertisement of NIT published in daily newspaper "Hindustan Daily" dated 8.6.2009, this Court considered the response of the State, the writ application was ultimately dismissed but, was made entitled to refund of the earnest money and to participate in the fresh tender if he has not been otherwise prohibited from participating in the tender.