GOLRA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, BISTUPUR FRUIT MARKET, JAMSHEDPUR THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SHRI FAZAL KHAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the allotment of work under allotment letter no. 1/PMC/Work/572/08-78 Ranchi dated 29.6.2009 in favour of respondent no. 5 and for direction to allot the said work to the petitioner.

(2.) Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to the decision of the tender committee dated 11.11.2008 submitted that all the bids including that of petitioner and respondent no. 5 were found valid but the petitioner was denied allotment of the work on the ground that out of four works already allotted to the petitioner, progress in two works were found unsatisfactory i.e. 40.51% and 25% though the petitioner was senior-most and local contractor; and work was allotted in favour of respondent no. 5 only on the ground that there was satisfactory progress to the extent of 75.06% in another work allotted to him. He referred to Clause 16 of Jharkhand Enlistment of Contractors Rules, 2001 (for short "the Rules"). He further submitted that the work in progress with regard to the earlier work given to respondent no. 5 has been taken to be 75.06% including the materials brought at the site by respondent no. 5 and, therefore, it cannot be said that he had completed the work up to 75%. He further submitted that respondent no. 5 has manipulated the reports for ousting the petitioner and getting the allotment in his favour. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned Advocate General, appearing for respondents no. 1 to 4 and Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 5 denied and disputed the stand taken by Mr. Sinha, appearing for the petitioner and supported the decision of the tender committee. They, inter alia, relied on the judgment of Raunaq International Ltd. vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. and others, 1999 AIR(SC) 393 and Master Marine services (P) Ltd. vs. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd. and another, 2005 6 SCC 138.

(3.) After hearing the counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and on going through the records, I find no reason to interfere with the decision making process in awarding work to respondent no. 5. Clause 16 of the Rules reads as under:-