Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 216 (PAT)

Vishnu Deo Rai v. State Of Bihar

2006-03-06

S.K.KATRIAR

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Shivaji Pandey for the petitioner and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned junior counsel to Government Pleader No. IV. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to settle the contract for a period of one year for toll coiiection of Mahatma Gandhi Setu span ning river Ganga and connecting the townships of Patna and Hajipur. 2. The facts are not in dispute. Respondent No. 5 (Executive Engineer, National Highway, Gulzarbag Division, Gulzarbag, Patna) issued an advertisement which appeared in the local dailies on 6.8.2004 (Annexure-1), inviting tenders for settlement of toll collection of the Setu for a period of one year. Clause 9 of the advertisement reads as follows: LOCAL LANGUAGE The respondent authorities had fixed 6.14 crores to be the minimum bid amount. The auction took place on 11.9.2004, the petitioners bid was the highest and he offered a sum of Rs. 5.35 crores which was short by 12. 86% of the reserve Jama. it is stated in the inter-departmental communication marked Annexure-4 that the collection as an interim measure be done departmentally. It engages a lot of employees and engineers of the department, is not conducive to the main work of the department which diverts a lot of its employees, nor for revenue collection, and steps may be taken for negotiation with the petitioner. The communication further states that 6.31 crores was departmentally collected during 2003-2004. It appears that the petitioner after negotiations revised his offer by communication dated 15. 12.2004 (Annexure-6), wherein he raised his offer to a sum of Rs. 6.21 crores, which is higher by seven lacs to the floor price. It may incidentally be stated, though not of any consequence, that the petitioner entirely on his own had deposited more than fifty lacs with the Government treasury in anticipation of the approval. The respondent authorities have declined to issue the work order and have refunded the said sum. 3. The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit and have opposed the writ petition, inter alia, stating therein that it has been decided to readvertise because of lapse of time. 4. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It must first of all be noted that Clause-9 of the advertisement does not specify and does not bind down the parties to a particular period. 4. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It must first of all be noted that Clause-9 of the advertisement does not specify and does not bind down the parties to a particular period. It only covers a period of one year from the date of issuance of the work order. Therefore, the respondent authorities are not right in their submission that it should be readvertised because one year has lapsed since the auction took place. The inaction and delay is entirely attributable to the respondent authorities. Another facet of the same matter is that if the respondent authorities had taken the decision in time, then the petitioner would have started getting returns of its investment much earlier. There would be no compensation to him in any manner if the work is now allotted to him. 5. The petitioners offer of a sum of Rs. 6.21 crores is higher than the floor price fixed by the State Government. No precise reason has been stated in the counter affidavit as to why the said sum offered by the petitioner is not acceptable to the respondent authorities. The following portion of the inter-departmental communication (Annexure-4) is illuminating: LOCAL LANGUAGE Therefore, even if the State Government was able to collect 6.31 crores departmentally during 2003-2004, ten lacs more than the sum offered by the petitioner, the Governments establishment cost and dislocation of the departments main work has to be taken into account. I also take judicial notice of the position that the State Government is facing a major crisis of shortage of personnel at all levels. On the other hand, allotment of work to the petitioner will generate employment, who may also pay taxes. Therefore, taking the totality of circumstances, the petitioners offer of Rs. 6.21 crores on the face of it appears to be a better proposition than departmental collection, in a situation where his offer is the highest and above the reserve Jama, The State Government has also enjoyed the deposit of more than fifty lacs for some time, apart from the earnest money, without any obligation. 6. In the result, I direct respondent no. 5 to issue the work order to the petitioner for a period of one year forthwith subject of course to completion of formalities like deposit of amount etc. as per the established procedure. 6. In the result, I direct respondent no. 5 to issue the work order to the petitioner for a period of one year forthwith subject of course to completion of formalities like deposit of amount etc. as per the established procedure. This Court will be pleased if the entire process is completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.