LAWS(JHAR)-2016-10-18

M/S ARUN KUMAR MISHRA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. DISTRICT PAKUR [W.P.(C) NO. 4522 OF 2016] Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

Decided On October 20, 2016
M/S Arun Kumar Mishra Construction Pvt. Ltd. District Pakur [W.P.(C) No. 4522 Of 2016] Appellant
V/S
The State Of Jharkhand Through Secretary, Water Resource Department, Government Of Jharkhand, Ranchi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) Both the writ petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of the respondent-Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Dumka whereby and where under their bids have been rejected in the matter of award of work for construction of series of Check Dams at Sherpur Joriya, Block Maheshpur, District Pakur for an estimated cost of Rs.1,65,05,690.00 under Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 14th May 2016. NIT No.WRD/MID/PAKUR/F2-01/2016-17 is Annexure-2 in both the writ petitions. The impugned order dated 5th July, 2016 is Annexure-3 in both the writ petitions. They have also challenged the award of work to respondent no.5 by letter no. 527 dated 19th July 2016 issued by the respondent no.3-Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Dumka directing the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Dumka to enter into an agreement with the private respondent. In the nature of work notified by the NIT (Annexure-2) on-line tenders were invited where interested bidders were to submit their bids through the necessary portal enrolment with their own Digital Signature by 26th May 2016. Terms and conditions are incorporated in the NIT which also specifies that general rules, conditions of contract and special conditions of contract are also available on the website and govern the award of work. Five bidders participated; two petitioners and the private respondent being local of Pakur District and other being outsiders. A comparative chart was prepared by the Divisional Accountant with the observation that all the tenderers had submitted earnest money and each one of them have quoted their rates 10% below the estimated rate. After opinion recorded by the Executive Engineer and the Superintending Engineer, the matter was placed before the Chief Engineer, who is the competent authority as per the value of such nature of work. The Chief Engineer found three of these bidders as local and other two being outsiders. Out of these three bidders, document of petitioner M/s Tarun Infracon Pvt. Ltd. was found to be incorrect. So far as the petitioner M/s Arun Kumar Mishra Construction Pvt. Ltd. in W.P.(C) No.4891/2016 is concerned, it was noted that the said bidder had not uploaded his bid in the name of the firm. As such it could not be considered.

(3.) Challenge to the impugned decision has been made by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4522 of 2016 on the ground that despite the fact that petitioner having a valid registration in the name of the company as per decision of the Water Resources Department contained at Annexure-1/1 dated 24th July, 2015 and upon submission of all relevant documents in the name of the company itself, its bid has been held to be ineligible as it has purportedly applied as a firm.