Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 318 (PAT)

Raj Construction v. State Of Bihar

2004-03-18

RADHA MOHAN PRASAD

body2004
Judgment 1. As in both these writ petitions the questions involved are common, as agreed, the parties have been heard for disposal of the same by this common order. 2. in both these writ petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved by the decision dated 17.2.2004 of the Departmental Tender Committee to allot the remaining work of Pilet Channel from 0.00 K.M. to 6 K.M from Digha to Rajapur bridge under Ganga Sone Flood Protection Division, Digha, Patna to Shristi Developers Pvt. Ltd. (respondent no. 7) pursuant to the tender notice contained in Annexure 1 to first writ petition. 3. In short the relevant facts are that on 17th January, 2004 tender was invited for the work in question vide Emergent Tender Notice No. 06/2003-04 (Annexure 1 to the first writ petition) by the Executive Engineer, Ganga Sone Flood Protection Division, Digha, Patna for an estimated cost of Rs. 296 lacs. Clause 10 of the said tender notice provided that the estimated cost and quantity may increase or decrease. The said tender was invited to bring the Ganga near Patna. According to the case of the petitioners, there were four bidders including the petitioners out of whom on opening of technical bid on 5.2.2004 three bidders, namely, the petitioner of the first case and the petitioner of the second case and respondent no. 7 of both the cases were found eligible. It is stated that after completion of technical bid the financial bid was opened and the petitioner of the first case claims to be the lowest bidder. However, the petitioner of the second case also claims to be the lowest bidder. It appears that the matter was referred to the Departmental Tender Committee headed by the Commissioner and Secretary, Water Resources Department. The other members of the Committee were Engineer-in-Chief (North and Central), Water Resources Department, Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Patna and the Superintending Engineer, Flood Control Planning and Monitoring Circle, Patna, The Committee on 17.2.2004 considering various aspects felt that the rate quoted for more than two digit after decimal by the tenderer was to divert the tender and hence only two digit after decimal of the rate of tenderers were accepted as equal. The Committee decided to allot the work to respondent no. The Committee decided to allot the work to respondent no. 7 by giving preference over the petitioner of the first case as he belonged to Chapra district and not local and the petitioner of the second case also as his registration is of Jharkhand State. Accordingly, vide Annexure B to the counter affidavit the Committee approved the recommendation of the Chief Engineer to allot work to respondent no. 7 at below 14.96 % of the estimated rate. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it would be evident from the comparative statement (Annexure 2) giving details of all the parties that the bid of respondent no. 7 was not the lowest, yet decision for settlement has been taken in their favour without adopting any valid criteria. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in the second case, the respondent authorities have acted whimsically and arbitrarily in deciding the figure of lowest tender without correctly applying the formula for determining the Lowest Acceptable Limit as given in Clause 1.2.4 of the tender notice and malafide arriving altogether the different figure for giving favour to respondent no. 7. In support of this he submitted that the decision of the Committee that the rate quoted for more than two digit after decimal by the tenderer be ingnored and to accept only up to two digit after decimal of the rate of tenderers is wholly arbitrary and would make lot of difference to even the State Ex-chequor. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent State as well as those appearing for respondent no. 7 in respective writ petitions on the other hand contended that there is no substance in the said submission, in this regard Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 7 in the second case, with reference to paragraph 15 of the writ petition itself submitted that the difference as has been worked out by the petitioner himself comes to only 2000/- on the basis of the decision of the committee which is negligible and cannot make the decision of the Committee arbitrary or malafide as the Committee has considered other aspects also, such as turn over, registration of the respective parties etc., and has found the case of the petitioner to be superior and accordingly, accorded its approval for allotment of work in favour of respondent no. 7. 6. Mr. 7. 6. Mr. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.7 in the first case, submitted that the Committee has found that out of three tenderers only the petitioner of the second case and respondent no. 7 are local and since turn over of respondent no. 7 is higher than the petitioner of the second case and also that the petitioner of the second case has the registration of Jharkhand State, approved the recommendation of the Chief Engineer to allot work in favour of respondent no. 7 which is not arbitrary and warranting interference in writ jurisdiction, more so when the petitioners have not been able to show that the reasons assigned by the Committee are unfounded. 7. I find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. It is not the case of the petitioner that the reasons assigned by the Committee are incorrect and unfounded. They have simply assailed the settlement on the ground that they are the lowest bidder. It has rightly been demonstrated by Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 7 in the second case, that the difference on account of decision of the Committee to count only upto two digit after decimal makes difference of Rs. 2000/- only for allotment of work of 296 lacs. The case of respondent no. 7 has been found superior on consideration of the other relevant factors as referred to above which cannot be termed as arbitrary decision of the Committee. 8. This Court thus finds no merit in both the writ petitions and they are accordingly dismissed. The interim order passed on 25.2.2004 in the first case thus is vacated and the respondent authority may now proceed in the matter accordingly.