BALAJI ENTERPRISES, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH, THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, VED PRAKASH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND, THROUGH SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals arise out of the common Judgment dated 2.08.2018, passed by the Writ Court, in W.P.(C) No.986 of 2018 and W.P.(C) No.888 of 2018, whereby both the writ applications were disposed of, quashing the decision dated 8.2.2018, taken by the Departmental Tender Committee, rejecting the bids of the writ petitioner, and the matter was remanded to the Departmental Tender Committee to take the decision afresh, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner / his representative.

(2.) It may be stated that the matter relates to award of contract for the purpose of collection of user fee through fee collecting agency, on two spans of the State Highway, one being from KMs 5 to KMs 780 of Kandra-Chowka Section, and the other being in the State Highway No.5 from KM 0.00 to 47.86 in Chaibasa-Kandra Section. The appellant in both these appeals was not a party to the writ applications and as such, his prayer for leave to challenge the impugned order passed in the writ applications was challenged at the very first instance, when these appeals were taken up by a co-ordinate Bench on 20.12.2018. Upon hearing the parties, including the writ petitioner, it was held that the appellant is an interested party, so far as the subject matter of the writ petition is concerned, and it had sufficient interest in the subject litigation and was permitted to present these two appeals. Against the said order passed by this Court, the petitioner respondent No.5 moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal C. Nos. 6434-6435 of 2019, and by order dated 11.03.2019, the petitions were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate legal forum as per law. It may further be added that at the time of final hearing also, the question of locus standi of the appellant to challenge the impugned order, was seriously raised on behalf of the writ petitioner respondent No.5, placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Vinoy Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2001 4 SCC 734. However, in view of the fact that this issue has already been decided by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 20.12.2018 passed in these appeals, and the challenge to said order also did not find favour from the Apex Court, this is practically a closed chapter now. The only question that remains to be considered is whether the appellant being an interested party, thus, having the locus to challenge the impugned order, can succeed in these Letters Patent Appeals, on merits or not.

(3.) The necessary facts are common to both these appeals. Notices inviting e-tender for selection of bidder for collection of user fee through fee collecting agency on the basis of the competitive bidding, were published by the Executive Engineers of Road Construction Department, Road Division, Saraikela-Kharsawan and Chaibasa, for both the aforesaid spans of road in Candra-Chowka Section and Chaibasa-Kandra Section in the State of Jharkhand. The writ petitioner was the single bidder for both the sections and his bids were also found to be technically and financially responsive by the Departmental Tender Committee. However, a complaint was made against the petitioner by a company, namely, HSM Holding Pvt. Ltd., which appears to be entertained by the State Government, even though the said company was not a bidder in any of the notices inviting e-tender. No Letter of Award (LOA) was issued in favour of the writ petitioner, and another set of notices inviting e-tender (2nd call) were issued for the same sets of works by the Executive Engineers, Road Construction Department, Saraikela-Kharsawan and Chaibasa. The petitioner challenged the second call of tender in the writ applications being W.P.(C) No.888 of 2018 and in W.P.(C) No.986 of 2018, and during the pendency of the writ applications, it transpired that the Department tender Committee, vide its resolution dated 8.2.2018, had made recommendations of rejecting the bid of the writ petitioner. On 15.02.2018 again, by way of 3rd call, again the notices inviting e-tender for the same set of works were issued by the respondent Executive Engineers, Road Construction Department, and the petitioner challenged both these actions of the respondent State in the said writ applications itself, by way of filing interlocutory applications, which were allowed. However, during the pendency of the writ applications, the 3rd call of e-tenders was again cancelled, as the Departmental Tender Committee had rejected the bids of all the bidders on technical ground. Accordingly, by way of 4th call, again the notices inviting e-tenders for the same set of works were issued by the respondent Executive Engineers, Road Construction Department, on 14.06.2018, in which, this appellant also submitted his tender. As in view of the impugned Judgment passed by the Writ Court, the 4th call inviting the e-tenders had become infructuous, those tenders were not even opened by the State Government. This is how the appellant has preferred these Letter Patent Appeals, aggrieved by the impugned Judgment passed by the Writ Court on 2.08.2018, in both the writ applications.