VINDHYA CONSTRUCTION Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice dated 7.7.2012 (Annexure-11) published in the Hindi newspaper 'Prabhat Khabar' by which the N.I.T dated 7.4.2012 for carrying out special repairing work of the road between Church Road - College More, Giridih, Bengabad- Madhupur road measuring 2.65 km has been cancelled in view of the letter dated 29.6.2012 contained in letter No. 1498 issued by the Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the subsequent N.I.T.s dated 2.7.2012 (Annexure-12) and 28.7.2012 (Annexure-13) for the same work. During the pendency of the writ application with respect to the aforesaid N.I.T.s, vide interim order dated 23.8.2012, it was directed that the work in question shall not be allotted to any other persons in the meantime.

(2.) According to the petitioner, after having participated in the N.I.T dated 7.4.2012 (Annexure-1) and having been found eligible as the lowest bidder, the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Giridih by his letter dated 17.5.2012 (Annexure-4) directed the petitioner to enter into an agreement after furnishing the required earnest money of Rs. 2,42,000/- and also ensuring presence of such plants, machinery and laboratory etc. at the work site for execution of the work apart from furnishing work programme and phasing of work before entering into the agreement. It was further made clear that even after execution of the agreement if any of the document furnished by the petitioner was found to be forged then the earnest money of the petitioner will be forfeited and the agreement would be cancelled. This letter was followed by another letter dated 6.6.2012 (Annexure-6) by the same Executive Engineer to the petitioner asking him to deposit the earnest money as aforesaid within a period of 3 days for entering into the agreement. However, according to the petitioner he deposited the same on 8.6.2012 (Annexure-7) and informed the same to the Executive Engineer for entering into the agreement(Annexure-8). In the meantime, according to the petitioner some development took place which is reflected from the communication of the same Executive Engineer dated 15.6.2012 (Annexure-9). As per the said letter the Executive Engineer informed the petitioner that he had approached the Jharkhand High Court challenging non-allotment of the work to him under the same division. In this connection the petitioner was informed that documents submitted by him were declared invalid by the tender committee. The affidavit to that effect has also been filed before the High Court in the said case. In the aforesaid background it was indicated that no allotment of work would be made to the petitioner before obtaining proper guidelines from the higher officials of the department and that without obtaining work order he will not execute the work in the said division. The petitioner responded vide Annexure-10 and, thereafter, on 7.7.2012 the newspaper notice was issued canceling the N.I.T itself, acting upon the decision of the Road Construction Department vide letter No. 1498 dated 29.6.2012. The petitioner also challenged the subsequent N.I.T.s, (Annexure-12 and 13 dated 2.7.2012 and 28.7.2012 respectively) which related to the same work, by which the respondents were inclined to allot the work in respect of which the petitioner has moved this Court being aggrieved by the impugned notice. However, the N.I.T.s were not given effect to because of the interim order and affidavit were exchanged in the meantime. The respondents now have preferred I.A. No. 357 of 2013 seeking vacation of stay of the allotment of the said work as on account of the interim order public works in question have remained unexecuted.

(3.) Respondents have sought to justify the impugned notice on the ground inter-alia that the documents of the petitioner submitted at the time of finalization of tender were examined by the tender committee after issuance of the letter dated 17.5.2012 (Annexure-4) and it was found that the documents which were furnished by the petitioner in the earlier tender, which were declared invalid, have been furnished in the instant tender as well; that this amounts to violation of the terms and condition of the N.I.T. under which the respondents were entitled to cancel the N.I.T itself. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that much weight should not be attached to the communication dated 15.6.2012 (Annexure-9) issued by the Executive Engineer as they were in connection with another writ petition wherein petitioner has not been allotted work for having furnished certain documents declared invalid. As such, petitioner should not be permitted to make out a case of grudge or bias against the officer concerned as in any case upon the direction of the department itself the impugned notice dated 7.7.2012 has been issued and the respondents have chosen to cancel the N.I.T. itself as no agreement has been entered into with the petitioner and also no work order has been allotted to him.