SHRI PURAN ALLEY Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Mr. Puran Allay, a law graduate but not practicing as an Advocate has preferred the present petition claiming to be an unemployed youth and engaged in doing social work for the upliftment of Sikkim. There are no details of the social works the Petitioner has been doing in the past. The Petitioner claims that after his graduation when he came back to Sikkim in the year 2013 he observed that there was no overall development in the State and the money received from the Center had not been utilized in the proper place for the upliftment of the downtrodden people of Sikkim. There is no further clarification to this broad spectrum allegation. It is his plea that whenever he would visit remote areas he would notice poor people staying in deplorable condition and thus was anxious to find out the exact reason as to why despite the Central Government providing funds the people of Sikkim have not been proportionately uplifted. Besides the allegation there are no facts pleaded or proof submitted to substantiate the allegations. The Petitioner claims that he started doing research in the matter and came across shortcomings in the functioning of the Governmental machineries. The Petitioner claims that those shortcoming were that the funds were utilized on non productive schemes; there was no proper allocation of funds to such schemes which would directly benefit the Shri Puran Alley Vs. State of SikkimOrs. downtrodden; the funds were provided for religious matters; funds were not provided for construction of roads, electricity, establishment of specialized hospitals, schools, research work, technical education, medical facilities etc. which are the basic requirements of the people. There is not a single document filed with the Writ Petition to substantiate the statements made about the Petitioner's perceptions of the said shortcomings.

(2.) It is claimed by the Petitioner that while doing research the Petitioner came across one Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) published in Sikkim Herald, Sikkim Reporter and Dainik Mirmiray. The Petitioner therefore, sought for copy of the "NIT" under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the Petitioner was furnished with copy of the "NIT" published in Sikkim Herald on 25.05.2017 and 30.05.2017, Sikkim Reporter on 26.05.2017 and Dainik Mirmiray on 26.05.2017. On a perusal of the "NIT", the Petitioner claims he was shocked to notice that the publication of the "NIT" was done in a casual manner. The Petitioner claims that the publication of the tender has not been done in widely circulated papers or National dailies in so far as the Petitioner's knowledge goes but also states in the same breadth that the publication shows that it was published in e-tender. It is the perception of the Petitioner that only a handful of contractors are conversant with computer knowledge. Yet another grievance of the Petitioner is that the tender does not disclose the nature of work, schedule of work, compliance of Sikkim Works Manual, compliance of Sikkim Shri Puran Alley Vs. State of SikkimOrs. Financial Rules and other related laws and other details. Mr. B. Sharma, Learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner could not point out any such non-compliance from the records of the case. The Petitioner states that he also received one Addendum dated 006.2017 as well as Corrigendum dated 05.07.2017 through the process of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Petitioner claims that on examining the Invitation for Bids dated 23.05.2017, the Addendum dated 006.2017 and Corrigendum dated 05.07.2017 the Petitioner came to learn how public money from the Government exchequer had been embezzled. It is the case of the Petitioner that the aforesaid three documents makes it clear that the entire exercise of the tender process was undertaken to accommodate Respondent No.4 in order to give him "favouritism". It is alleged that the Respondent No.4 did not even participate in the pre-bid meeting and in spite of that his tender was accepted. It is the case of the Petitioner that there were as many as three participants in the tender bid. The Petitioner has sought to invoke the Public Interest Litigation remedy to ventilate his perceived grievance and sought the following prayers:-

(3.) Mr. B. Sharma would submit that although the Invitation for Bids dated 205.2017 required that the contractors who have experience in the construction of museum/artefacts and consider themselves capable to undertake execution of the project could download the details and bidding documents, Annexure-P11 dated 17.06.2016 would show that the contractor who has been given the contract i.e. Respondent No.4 did not have the requisite qualification. We have examined Annexure-P11 which is a letter addressed to the Chief Engineer dated 17.06.2017 written by M/s Adland Publicity Private Ltd. stating therein that M/s Adland Publicity Private Ltd. is an old associate agency of Shri Sonam Topden Bhutia (Class I-A Government Contractor) the Respondent No.4 herein. It is also stated in the said communication that the said M/s Adland Publicity Private Ltd. and the Respondent No.4 have been working as a joint venture since 2008. As an annexure Shri Puran Alley Vs. State of SikkimOrs. thereto details of various dimensional creative worksdesigns executed by the said M/s Adland Publicity Private Ltd. were also furnished. Various certificates issued by various authorities have been attached thereto providing information regarding various works undertaken by the said M/s Adland Publicity Private Ltd. The Addendum to the NIT filed by the Petitioner reflect that preference could be given to such agencies having valid agreement with firms/persons who have done museum works at National/State Level. The Corrigendum merely reschedules the dates for bid submission and opening of bids to 28.07.2017 and 01.08.2017 respectively.