SETH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that the Petitioner is one of the bidders for construction of two godowns having capacity of 2500 metric tones, for storage of foodgrains and fertilizers and one more god own having a capacity of 1000 metric tones in the campus of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Latehar. The tender notice is at Annexure-1 to the memo of the petition, which is dated 4th January, 2011.

(2.) It has been submitted by the counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has offered the price for the construction of the aforesaid godowns at Rs. 1,81,50,000/-against the estimated cost of the godowns published in the tender, which is at Rs. 2,13,00,000/-. Thus, against the aforesaid estimated cost, the Petitioner is ready and willing to construct the aforesaid godowns with 15% lesser amount in competition with other bidders. The Petitioner was decided to allot the work by the Respondents by a letter dated 27th January, 2011 (Annexure-2 to the memo of the petition), but, to the utter surprise of the Petitioner without cancelling the aforesaid letter and without assigning any reason to the Petitioner and without giving any notice to the Petitioner abruptly, arbitrarily and unilaterally, the notice inviting tender dated 4th January, 2011 (Annexure-1) was cancelled and a fresh notice inviting tenders was published on 28th February, 2011, which is at Annexure-3 to the memo of the petition, which is under challenge in this writ petition mainly on the ground that the Petitioner is ready and willing to complete the work against estimated cost of Rs. 2,13,00,000/-for Rs. 1,81,50,000/-.

(3.) Counsel for the Respondents-State submitted that a detailed counter affidavit has been filed and as stated in the counter affidavit, filed by Respondent No. 1 especially, in paragraph Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 18, it has been stated that if the Petitioner would have quoted Rs. 1,81,50,001 /-, the Petitioner would have entitled to get the contract. The gist of the counter affidavit, filed by the State, appears to be that if the Petitioner could have quoted one rupee more to complete the aforesaid three godowns, he would have fallen within the criteria stated at condition No. 18.