Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1212 (HP)

Sohan Pal Singh v. State of H. P.

2014-09-06

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT : - Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice Petitioner has questioned the notice inviting e-tender, dated 4th June, 2014 (Annexure P-14) issued by respondent No. 4, whereby online bids on Item Rate basis have been invited for restoration of rain damages to channelization of Bata River at various Reduced Distances (RDs) from RD 14060 to 16900 meters in Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P., on the grounds taken in the memo of writ petition. 2. Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was allotted the said work in terms of letters, dated 26th November, 2010, (Annexures P-1 to P-5), which comprises of nine jobs of channelization of Bata River at RD 10230 to 19700 meters. The execution of the said work is in progress for all jobs, but despite that, the respondents have issued Annexure P-14, thus, has questioned the same being illegal, arbitrary and against the interest of the petitioner. 3. The respondents have filed reply. It has been admitted in the reply that after scrutinizing the various tenders, respondent No. 4 allotted the work of the nine jobs in favour of the petitioner vide letters, dated 26th November, 2010. It has been averred that the petitioner has already completed the work of jobs No. 1, 5 and 6, awarded in terms of letters No. 23274-81, 23306-13 and 26314-21, respectively, dated 26th November, 2010 and has not completed the work of other jobs. The work of jobs No. 2, 3 and 7 is still in progress and the petitioner has not yet started the work of jobs No. 4, 8 and 9. 4. Further, that the amount allocated for job No. 1 was Rs. 89,81,024/- for job No. 5 was Rs. 79,17,131/- and for job No. 6 was Rs. 86,15,700/-, however, amount of Rs. 1,00,40,414/-, Rs. 85,01,074/- and Rs. 95,42,755/- has been paid to the petitioner for each job, respectively. 4. Further, that the amount allocated for job No. 1 was Rs. 89,81,024/- for job No. 5 was Rs. 79,17,131/- and for job No. 6 was Rs. 86,15,700/-, however, amount of Rs. 1,00,40,414/-, Rs. 85,01,074/- and Rs. 95,42,755/- has been paid to the petitioner for each job, respectively. It has also been contended that during the rainy season in the year 2013, some damage has been caused to the works of jobs No. 1, 5 and 6, which has already been completed by the petitioner and the tender, dated 4th June, 2014, (Annexure P-14) has been issued for restoration of the rain damage to the channelization of Bata River from RD 14060 to 16900 meters, thus, the petitioner has no right to seek restraint order and cannot plead that he has not completed the work and is entitled to execute the fresh work also. He has completed the work and has been paid for the same; under the garb of the contract of 2010, he is trying to carve out a case for virtually carrying out the work which stands already executed and even the life of the said contract has come to an end. 5. It is apt to reproduce the relevant portion of the e-tender notice, Annexure P-14, herein: “HIMACHAL PRADESH IRRIGATION CUM PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT NOTICE INVITING E-TENDER Online bids on Item Rte basis are invited by the Executive Engineer, I&PH Division, Paonta Sahib on behalf of Governor of Himachal Pradesh, in electronic tendering system in two covers for the under mentioned work from the contractors/firms of appropriate class enlisted with Himachal Pradesh I&PH Department. Sr. No. Name of work. Estimated cost. Earnest money. Time Cost of form 1. Restoration of Rain Damages to Channelization of Bata River at various RD's from RD 14060 to 16900 mtrs in Tehsil Paonta Sahib District Sirmour (HP) 68,19,431/- 1,09,800/- Three Months 800/- …………………………..….” 6. Admittedly, the allotment of work was made for channelization of Bata River at RD 10230 to 19700 meters in Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour at various RD's on RHS at different places, in terms of Annexures P-1 to P-5, dated 26th November, 2010, which comprises of nine jobs. The time frame for completing the work was six months in all the said letters. Admittedly, the petitioner had to complete the work within six months and virtually that contract has lost its efficacy by efflux of time. The time frame for completing the work was six months in all the said letters. Admittedly, the petitioner had to complete the work within six months and virtually that contract has lost its efficacy by efflux of time. 7. However, the respondents have specifically pleaded that the petitioner has completed the work of jobs No. 1, 5 and 6 and more than the contract amount/sanctioned amount has been released in favour of the petitioner after completion of the work and he cannot now seek an order from the Court to restrain the respondents from carrying out the repair works, which has been caused due to the heavy rains in the year 2013. 8. There is nothing on the file, which can be made basis for holding that the petitioner has not completed the work of jobs No. 1, 5 and 6. 9. The State-respondents have filed supplementary affidavit and has indicated as to how much amount was sanctioned for all the nine jobs and how much amount has been paid to the petitioner on the completion of the work of jobs No. 1, 5 and 6. 10. The petitioner has filed response to the supplementary affidavit but has not been able to establish that he has not received the amount, more than which was sanctioned/allocated, on the completion of the said work. 11. The question is – whether the petitioner has any right to seek remedy at this stage in order to restrain the respondents-State from issuing the tender for the damages, which has been caused in the year 2013, in view of the allotment of the contract of 2010? The answer is in the negative for the reasons discussed hereinabove. 12. It is also apt to record herein that the petitioner has to carve out a case for judicial interference in view of the judgments made by the Apex Court, which have been discussed by this Court in CWP No. 4112 of 2014, titled as Minil Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another, decided on 15th July, 2014, and CWP No. 9337 of 2013-D, titled as Shri Ashok Thakur versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others, decided on 6th May, 2014, has failed to do so, thus, has no right to question the tender impugned, as discussed hereinabove. 13. Having said so, the writ petition merits to be dismissed. 13. Having said so, the writ petition merits to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed alongwith all pending applications.