TSHERING DIKI BHUTIA Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this writ petition, the petitioner inter alia made prayers for quashing or cancelling the work order awarded to one Palden Sherpa, respondent No. 2 relating to "Jhora Training Works near the Bojoghari Junior High School" and for a direction to the Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Sikkim, respondent No. 1 to issue notice inviting tenders in the Sikkim Herald at least in two consecutive issues giving a minimum one month's time so that all the eligible contractors could participate in the tenders.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is as follows :-

(3.) Miss Tshering Diki Bhutia, the petitioner, is an enlisted contractor with the Sikkim Public Works Department under the category-IV. The Irrigation Department surveyed the land near Bojoghari Junior High School which is adjacent to the land of the petitioner through its engineers and the Irrigation Department assured the father of the petitioner that the work would be awarded on the basis of tender. The father of the petitioner who is a registered contractor visited the office of the Irrigation Department from time to time but the notice inviting tender was not displayed in the office notice board nor in any other conspicuous place and, therefore, notice inviting tender was not published openly. Consequently, it was learnt that the work was awarded to one Palden Sherpa, respondent No. 2. The notice inviting tender was neither published in the Sikkim Herald nor in any other local paper as provided under the Sikkim Financial Rules. The respondent No. 2, Shri Palden Sherpa and his relatives were the tenderers. It is alleged that the father of the respondent No. 2 was working in the Irrigation Department and, therefore, the tender was a collusive tender between the officials of the Irrigation Department and father of the respondent No. 2. The tender was not a genuine tender as the tenderers were respondent No. 2 and his near relatives. The father of the petitioner lodged a protest when the mother of the respondent No. 2 told him that she had obtained the works. It is stated that the work adjacent to the land of the petitioner has not yet started and the work adjacent to the land of Palden Sherpa, the respondent No. 2 had started. If the petitioner or her father knew about the tender they would have participated in the same.