LAWS(J&K)-2011-2-51

ASHOK SINGH Vs. STATE OF J AND K

Decided On February 01, 2011
ASHOK SINGH Appellant
V/S
State of J and K and Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For upgrading and widening Bantalab-Barnai Road, NIT No. 12/2010-11 dated 11.5.2010 was issued by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, R&B Construction Division-II, Jammu. Approximate cost of the work was Rs. 60.00 lacs and the persons who were ''A'' Class contractors were eligible to apply for the said purpose. The said NIT has been published in the newspaper ''Daily J&K State Express'' on 03.07.2010. The work stands allotted in favour of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 by order dated 8.10.2010.

(2.) The Petitioner states that he is entitled to the allotment of work as per Notification dated 11.5.2010. The Petitioner is a ''A'' Class Contractor. His grievance is that the NIT has been published in Daily J&K State Express which is an unknown paper and has a very limited publication. He contends that the Respondents are under an obligation in law to publish the NIT in a paper which has a wide circulation so that the eligible candidates could apply for allotment of the said work. Having published in a paper which has no circulation, the object of right of consideration, as such, has been denied to him which violates the Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) On the other hand, the stand of the Respondents is that NIT had been published in the State Express paper. In this respect, reliance has been placed upon a circular issued by the Government defining the procedure for submission of tenders. It is contended that in terms of the circular, instructions have been issued to the Government not to issue the Government advertisements in a local or national newspaper directly but it shall be routed through the Information Department. Adhering to this circular, the matter was referred to the Information Department, who have directed the publication of this NIT in the local newspaper. None of the rights of the Petitioner, as such, stands violated. It is also contended that the work stands already allotted to the Respondents, who have completed more than 50% of the said work.