VED NARAYAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the petitioner seeks andamus directing the respondents not to open tenders and/or allot the work to any Contractor in respect of tender notice dated 15-1-2002, which was published by combining the entire work in one Group and further for a direction directing the respondents to act in response to the earlier tender notice against which petitioner submitted his tender.

(2.) The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. The Public Health Engineering Department (in short PHED) under the signature of Superintending Engineer, PHED, Urban Circle, Ranchi advertised in the newspaper on 12-9-2001 inviting tender for laying of 38" dia M. S. Pipe lines; (i) from Rukka Gate upto Vikas Vidyalaya, (ii) From Vikas Vidyalaya Gate to Jumar Bridge and (iii) from Jumar Bridge to Booty Sump. Thus, the entire work of laying of pipe lines from Rukka Gate to Booty Sump was divided into three groups. The estimated value of the work of the first group was Rs. 219.019 Lakh, for the second work, the estimated value was Rs. 209.492 lakh, and for the third work the estimated value was Rs. 154.991 lakh. Subsequently two corrigenda were issued and published in the newspaper. The first corrigendum was published on 29-8-01 extending the date for submission of tender to 9-10-2001 and the date for supplying/selling tender paper was also extended upto 8-10-2001. The second corrigendum was issued and published in the Newspaper on 10-10-2001 again extending the date till 16-10-2001 for submission of tender and till 15-10-2001 for purchase of tender papers. It is contended by the petitioner that in the corrigendum also it was specifically mentioned that laying down of pipe lines from Rukka Gate to Booty Sump was divided into three groups. Photocopies of advertisement dated 12-9-01 and the two corrigenda have been annexed as Annexures 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

(3.) Petitioner's case is that in compliance of the tender notice he submitted tender paper in respect of the first Group i.e. for laying of 38" dia M.S. pipe line from Rukka Gate to Vikas Vidyalaya and deposited earnest money. It is further stated that according to the tender notice, the tender papers were to be opened on 16-10-2001, but instead of opening the tender on 16-10-2001 the Respondents mala fidely deferred the date for opening the tender paper. It is alleged that instead of opening of tender papers as per tender notice respondents kept the matter pending with an intention to help the favourite persons and finally cancelled the tender. Petitioner was informed vide letter dated 22-1-2001 that earlier tender which was in respect of three groups has been cancelled for unavoidable reasons. Respondents thereafter again advertised fresh tender notice in the Newspaper for the same work for laying of 38" dia M.S. pipes from Rukka Gate to Booty Sump. In the fresh Tender Notice, instead of 3 earlier groups, the entire work has been clubbed together and the period for completion of work has been fixed as 15 months. The contention of the petitioner is that according to the fresh 0 tender notice, earnest money was required to be deposited in the shape of National Savings Certificate and various other terms have been included in the tender notice. It is alleged by the petitioner that fresh tender notice is arbitrary and with mala fide intention to eliminate genuine tenderers who had submitted their tenders and to give opportunity to other contractors.