Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 365 (JHR)

Ashok Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2012-03-14

N.N.TIWARI

body2012
Order 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Notice Inviting Tender being NIT No. 04/2010-11 issued by respondent No. 3, i.e. Managing Director, Jharkhand state Agricultural Marketing Board, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, the tenders have been invited by the respondents for the work of construction of 03 Nos. of godown-storage for food-grains and fertilizers to the capacity of 6000 MT with electrification, PCC road and parking at Latehar, Garhwa, Pakur, Jamtara and Dumka. 2. It has been stated that for the same work, notice inviting tender (for short NIT) was earlier issued being NIT No. 03/2010-11 in which, the petitioner had taken part in the bid along with others. 3. The competent authority/Tender Committee after scrutiny of the bids had found the petitioner’s bid most suitable and taken a decision to allot the work to the petitioner for construction of godown at Garhwa. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed about the said decision by letter dated 27.1.2011. The petitioner was asked to complete the required formalities for making agreement. 4. The petitioner, thereafter, deposited the earnest money on 1.3.2011 as per the letter in the office of the Executive Engineer Agriculture marking Board, Ranchi Division. The petitioner deposited Rs. 08,38,700.00 by way of Bank Guarantee in spite of completing all required formalities, the respondent did not execute agreement. 5. The petitioner made several request for signing and executing the agreement to that effect so that the work may be started, but the same was not done. Suddenly, the petitioner came across the Notice Inviting Tender being NIT No. 04/2010-12 for the same work for Latehar, Garhwa, Pakur, Jamtara and Dumka districts. 6. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the said subsequent notice inviting tender being NIT No. 04/2010-11. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action on the part of the respondents is wholly arbitrary, illegal and unjust and the subsequent notice inviting tender is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the other contenders in the previous NIT in respect of Latehar, Garhwa, Pakur, Jamtara and Dumka districts have also preferred writ petitions. One of the writ petitions was filed by M/s Seth Kumar being WP(C) No. 1401/11. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the other contenders in the previous NIT in respect of Latehar, Garhwa, Pakur, Jamtara and Dumka districts have also preferred writ petitions. One of the writ petitions was filed by M/s Seth Kumar being WP(C) No. 1401/11. In the said case, the Court after hearing the parties, has quashed the Notice Inviting Tender being NIT No. 04/2010-11 in respect of Latehar District. Similarly in other cases, NIT was quashed in respect of other places. 9. It is further submitted that once the decision was taken by the competent authority/Tender Committee in favour of the petitioner for allotting the work and the decision was communicated to him, the respondent authorities cannot turn round and annul the same in the garb of inviting a fresh notice for the said work. The impugned notice is, thus wholly unjust, arbitrary and improper and the same is fit to be quashed by this Court. 10 Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that though the notices with respect to NIT No. 04/2010-11 in respect of other places have been quashed by this Court the instant case is different. In this case, though the work was allotted to the petitioner, it was subsequently found that one of the works allotted to the petitioner in the year 2008 is yet to be completed by him. In view thereof, the work allotted to the petitioner has been cancelled. After cancellation of the petitioner’s bid, he has been also blacklisted with respect to the earlier work. 11 I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that Notice Inviting Tender being NIT No. 03/2010-11 was floated. The petitioner was one of the bidders and his bid was considered by the Competent Authority/Tender Committee. After due scrutiny of all the relevant aspects the petitioner's bid was accepted and decision was taken to allot the work to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter deposited the earnest money. It is also an admitted fact that the said decision was taken by the Departmental Authority-cum-Competent Authority with full knowledge of the earlier pending work allotted to the petitioner. 12. It has been submitted by the petitioner that earlier work site was at a remote place and due to disturbance created by the extremists the same could not be completed within prescribed time. 12. It has been submitted by the petitioner that earlier work site was at a remote place and due to disturbance created by the extremists the same could not be completed within prescribed time. Information to that effect was also given to all concerned including the respondent authorities. It is not a case of the negligence or any willful fault on the part of the petitioner. The delay in executing work was under the circumstance, beyond his control. The Tender Committee had considered all those facts and circumstances and had taken a final decision for allotting the work to the petitioner. There was no change in the circumstance giving fresh case for cancellation of the decision after the bid was accepted and work was alloted to the petitioner. The respondent authorities, in haste, passed an order blacklisting the petitioner with respect to earlier work. The same has been done in order to give a cover to the said illegal order. 13. It has been further submitted that the instant work is in the town area and the petitioner has filed an affidavit in this court giving an undertaking that he will complete the work within the given time. 14.. In view of the above and also the facts that once the Departmental Committee/Tender Committee having considered the bids and other relevant aspects and decided to allot the work to the petitioner, I find no just and valid reason on record for disturbing the said decision. 15. On the basis of that decision and with legitimate expectation, the petitioner changed his position by depositing the earnest money and making preparation for execution of the work. In that view also the respondent cannot deviate from the earlier decision and cancel the allotment and invite a fresh tender with respect to Garhwa Work. The step of floating NIT No. 04/2010-11 with respect to Garhwa work is wholly arbitrary, unjust and vitiated. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, the Notice Inviting Tender with respect to Garhwa being NIT No. 04/2010-11 is quashed. This writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to proceed with the process required as per the terms of NIT No. 03/2010-11 after the stage already completed; extending the time of completion of work so as to give the full prescribed period for completion of the work.