RAMESHWARAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for a declaration that the action of the respondents State in declaring the tender bid of the 5th respondent, M/s. Kamal Nayan Narsaria as technically suitable and qualified, as illegal, as also for consequent grant of work order, being arbitrary and against the notice inviting tender and the terms and conditions attached thereto.

(2.) AN advertisement and notice inviting Tender No. 10 - -Year 2001 -02 was issued from the office of the respondent, Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation (R.E.O. for short), Works Division, Khunti for construction of 223.60 Meters long Bridge. The estimated cost was shown as Rs. 458.569 Lakhs. Apart from other conditions, it was also mentioned that those tenderer having minimum experience of construction of 250 Meters long Bridge, may apply. It was also mentioned that any tenderer along with tender paper may submit a better structure and design than the Detailed Project Report (DPR) and if estimated cost is lesser, after approval of the Technical Committee, if it is found to be correct, such tender may also be approved.

(3.) WHEN the case was earlier taken up for admission, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that work order has been allotted in favour of the 5th respondent, though the said respondent has not submitted tender as per the D.P.R., nor a separate structure and design of Bridge has been submitted by the said respondent. The Engineer -in -Chief, R.E.O. was called to assist the Court who made certain statement as was recorded on 16th May, 2002, as quoted hereunder : "In pursuance of Courts order, Mr. Madan Mohan Prasad,Engineer -in -Chief, R.E.O. Ranchi is present. He accepts that the total structure and design of bridge in question has not yet been submitted by Respondent No. 5 to find out as to whether the structure and design is better than DPR or not i.e. the structure and design submitted by MECON. This has to be seen as per Clause 28 of the tender notice. He states that allotment order has been issued in favour of respondent No. 5 on 20.4.2002 with condition that he will have to submit a better structure and design within one month.