Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 685 (JHR)

GRD CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

2005-09-08

M.Y.EQBAL

body2005
Judgment : ( 1 ) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in memo No. 637 dated 21-6-2005 whereby Work Order issued in favour of respondent No. 5 for the execution of work in the Water Resources Department. ( 2 ) THE Notice inviting tender was published in the newspaper dated 8-12-2004 under the signature of Executive Engineer, irrigation Division No. 1, Barhet, Sahibganj inviting tender from the contractors registered with the Water Resources Department for the works given under clause 7 of the said tender notice. The conditions, inter alia, mentioned in the tender notice was that the contractor has to deposit by way of security, six years saving certificate, 3 or 5 years post Office Term Deposit, and Bank Guarantee of any nationalized Bank which must be within the jurisdiction of the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Deoghar. Petitioner said to have complied with all the three conditions and quoted the price below 11. 3% of the tender price and all other tenderers have quoted the price below 15% of the tender price. It is stated that earlier the Secretary of the Department recommended for cancellation of tender but the new Secretary after his joining reviewed the order of the earlier Secretary and decided to award the work to respondent No. 5 after a period of about six months from the date of opening of the tender. It is contended by the petitioner that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have relaxed the conditions in order to favour respondent No. 5 and accordingly work order has been issued under the signature of joint Secretary, Water Resources Department Government of Jharkhand. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 to 4 have filed counter-affidavit. Respondents case is that as per the conditions stipulated in the Notice Inviting Tender, the tenderers have to give earnest money in the prescribed format inasmuch as Bank Guarantee to be issued from the Nationalized Bank within the jurisdiction of Chief Engineer, Deoghar. Respondents further case is that pursuant to the tender notice 7 tenderers submitted their tenders. Out to these seven tenders, 4 tenderers quoted rate as 15% below the schedule rate which is minimum workable rate fixed by the Government where as the petitioner quoted his rate as 11. 13% below the schedule rate. Respondents further case is that pursuant to the tender notice 7 tenderers submitted their tenders. Out to these seven tenders, 4 tenderers quoted rate as 15% below the schedule rate which is minimum workable rate fixed by the Government where as the petitioner quoted his rate as 11. 13% below the schedule rate. Almost two months after receipt of tender, the petitioner submitted a letter to the department that he is ready to work at 15% below the schedule rate. Petitioner submitted his letter after fully knowing the rates quoted by other tenderers, which are totally against the sanctity of submitting tender bids. It is stated that respondent No. 5 being the lowest bidder, the work was allotted to it. ( 4 ) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the affidavit and the documents annexed therewith. The only objection that might have been raised by the petitioner is with regard to acceptance of bank guarantee furnished by respondent No. 5. But from perusal of the record it appears that respondent No. 5 furnished bank Guarantee of Nationalized Bank namely, State Bank of India which is a prime nationalized Bank of the Country. Merely because the Bank Guarantee was issued from the place other than the place mentioned in the tender notice that will not be taken as violation of the major condition of the tender notice issued by the respondent authority. The respondent-authority have given certain relaxation in accepting Bank guarantee furnished by respondent No. 5, that cannot be taken as serious breach of the condition of the Notice Inviting Tender. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel, I do not find any gross illegality in the procedure adopted by the respondents in allotting tender to respondent no. 5. ( 5 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ application, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .