SANJAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant interlocutory application has been preferred by the respondent no. 6 for vacation of the interim order dated 13th December, 2012 passed in the instant writ application restraining him from executing the work in pursuance of the contract awarded in his favour vide Annexure-5 to the writ application dated 26th October, 2012. The work order was also issued pursuant thereto vide Annexure-IA-1 to the instant I.A. dated 4th December, 2012. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner has approached this court as he was not allotted the work and the interim order was passed restraining the respondent no. 6 from executing the work which was already allotted to him.

(2.) It is submitted on behalf of the private respondent that under clause 19 of the terms and conditions of the tender, the petitioner being the PDS licencee, could not participate in the said tender which was initiated for awarding the work for transportation of foodgrains from FCI Godowns to the doorstep of the Public Distribution Shops. It is submitted that even the State respondent at paragraph-8 of their counter affidavit, have also taken the same stand that the petitioner was disqualified in terms of clause-19 of the said tender notice itself. Counsel for the private respondent further submits that as per clause-2 of the tender notice (Annexure-4), a character certificate issued not more than six months before the date of the tender by the competent Superintendent of Police or Deputy Superintendent of Police on the specific question whether the tenderer is a convicted person or is involved in a criminal case relating to any offence for supply of foodgrains is pending against him or whether the tenderer has been blacklisted, has to be produced. Counsel for the respondent no. 6 submits that the character certificate has been issued in his favour and was submitted before the respondent-State authorities as none of these conditions apply to the respondent no. 6.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner however submits that though the rates quoted by the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 were the same, but the work was allotted to the respondent no. 6 and not to the petitioner, though there was criminal case pending against the respondent no. 6 vide Annexure-6 to the writ application being Baghmara (Mahuda) P.S. Case No. 71/12 registered under Sections 341, 323, 504, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.