Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 871 (JHR)

Bipin Bihari Singh v. State Of Bihar

2003-07-22

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2003
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner, against the order contained in letter No. 913 dated 7th June, 2003 issued by the Chief Engineer, Rural Development Special Area, Ranchi, whereby and where-under, the Executive Engineer has been informed that the order contained in letter No. 613 dated 24th April, 2003 has been cancelled and allotted the work in favour of the 7th Respondent, M/s. Star Construction. Further prayer has been made to direct the 4th Respondent to enter into an agreement with the petitioner for execution of work in pursuance of earlier order, contained in letter No. 616 dated 24th April, 2003, whereby, it was decided to allot the work in favour of petitioner - Bipin Bihari Singh. 2. It appears that in pursuance of Notice Inviting Tender (for short N.I.T.) No. 1/2002-03 dated 21st December, 2002, the petitioner purchased two tender documents and submitted tender papers for two different works as shown at Sl. Nos. 14 and 34 of the N.I.T. They related to construction of Bridge at Masukijari Joria and construction of Bridge at Gandhubba Joria on the Madankatta - Karon road. 3. The present case rebates to work of Group 34 i.e. construction of Bridge at Gandhubba Joria on Madankatta - Karon road. 4. According to the petitioner, he offered rate 15% of the scheduled rate for both the works covered by Item Nos. 14 and 34. He was the only Contractor of Deoghar district who competed. His rate being lowest, was categorized as L-1 in respect of both the items. The Chief Engineer, Rural development Special Area, Ranchi ordered to allot Group34 work in favour of petitioner being below 15% of the scheduled rate. For the said reason, the authorities decided to allot the other work. Item No. 14 of N.I.T. to some other Contractor. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that Respondents without any notice and hearing, cancelled letter No. 616 dated 24th April, 2003 by impugned letter No. 913 dated 7th June, 2003, which resulted cancellation of work order in favour of petitioner. 6. Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Engineer-in-Chief has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and such action of the Respondent is malafide exercise of power. 7. 6. Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Engineer-in-Chief has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and such action of the Respondent is malafide exercise of power. 7. The Respondents in their affidavit submitted that the petitioner quoted 10% (ten percent) below the scheduled rate, whereas the other quoted below 15% of the scheduled rate. Later on, the petitioner manipulated the document and 10 percent below the scheduled rate was changed to 15%. The word ten percent was changed as fifteen percent by adding fit before the word ten Similarly, 10% shown in numerical was changed to 15% by changing zero the five. 8. Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha disputed the aforesaid fact and submitted that the petitioner being an illiterate, there is a spelling mistake in both the tenders in respect to the work Nos. 14 and 34. According to him, the word fifteen has been wrongly written as fiften. It cannot be doubted as manipulation nor the order issued to allot the work in favour of petitioner can be cancelled without notice and hearing the petitioner. 9. To ascertain the real fact, the Court called for the original documents, which the Respondents produced. From the record, one can doubt the genuinity of the tender paper submitted by the petitioner, wherein fifteen both in word and numerical appears to be a little bit different than what actually it should have been. In the comparative statement also, the respondents shows it to be 10% below the scheduled rate, but later on it was changed as 15%. 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, there being a disputed question of fact, it is not possible for this Court to, determine whether the quotation of petitioner was 15% below the scheduled rate or was 10%. 11. In this back ground, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and for which the Court is not inclined to look into the other aspect with regard to the 4th Respondent, as alleged at the instance of the petitioner. 12. There being no material to held malafide, it is not desirable for this Court to proceed against the Officers impleaded as party Respondents. 13. The writ petition is dismissed.