Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 932 (JHR)

Babloo Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2012-07-05

JAYA ROY, PRAKASH TATIA

body2012
ORDER Learned counsel for the State has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9. Learned counsel Md. Mokhtar Khan is directed to accept notice on behalf of respondent no. 6, Central Bureau of Investigation and respondent no. 7, Director of Central Bureau of Investigation. Learned Counsel Mr. Amit Kumar Das is directed to receive notice on behalf of respondent no. 14, the Director, Enforcement Directorate. Mr. Deepak Roshan is directed to accept notice on behalf of respondent no. 15, Director (Investigation), Income Tax Department, Ranchi. 2. So far as notice to the respondent nos. 5, 10, 12 and 12 is concerned, we are not issuing any notice to these respondents which issue may be considered subsequent to the filing of the replies by the parties. However, notice be issued to respondent no. 13. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner may serve the copy of the writ petition on the counsel for the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. 4. The petitioner submitted that Income Tax raid as well as C.B.I. enquiry was going on in view of the serious allegation with respect to the illegal gratification to the then Chief Minister Sri Madhu Koda and his associates and for respondent IVRCL Infrastructures and Projects Limited, confidential report was already prepared by the office of Additional Director of Income tax (Investigation) and appraisal report was also prepared indicating involvement of this company in illegal gratification in the matter of power segment in Rajiv Gandhi Gramin Vidyut Yojna. The searches were conducted in the premises of the said respondent company on 31.10.2009 as well as on 23.12.2009. The respondent company's office was also covered under the search and seizure operation on 16.02.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that knowing all these acts of the respondent company, yet another contract was given to the same company by the State for which agreement was executed on 15.03.2010. It is submitted that said company has not virtually done any job after award of contract involving crores of rupees. 5. Learned counsel for the State drew our attention to one order passed in W.P.(PIL) No. 5847 of 2009 dated 15.03.2010 whereby relief was sought against the same respondent IVRCL company that the said company may not be awarded contract in question which is subject matter in this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the State drew our attention to one order passed in W.P.(PIL) No. 5847 of 2009 dated 15.03.2010 whereby relief was sought against the same respondent IVRCL company that the said company may not be awarded contract in question which is subject matter in this writ petition. It is submitted that vide order dated 15.03.2010 this Court clearly held that the vigilance enquiry may be pending in relation to some other matter, would not affect the validity of the finalization of the tender, unless either in the advertisement or in the tender documents there is a condition that a contractor, against whom a vigilance enquiry is pending with regard to any other matter, would stand disqualified from participating in the tender. With these observations the Public Interest Litigation W.P.(PIL) No. 5847 of 2009 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 15.03.2010. 6. Be that as it may, the question and allegation levelled against the said company is that it has not worked after getting the contract, therefore, the State may submit the status report within four weeks with respect to the work undertaken by the company, payment made to the company, work completed by the company and work remain pending with the company. 7. A copy of the order be given to the learned counsel for the parties. 8. The name of the learned counsel for the respondent referred above be shown in the cause list.