Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 548 (JHR)

Excel Venture Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand

2014-04-25

R.BANUMATHI, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
ORDER 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the order dated 13.3.2007 passed in W.P. (C) No. 358 of 2007, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that there was no arbitrariness in allotting the work in question to the 6th respondent. 2. A Tender Notice was issued by the Executive Engineer, R.E.O. Works Division, Jamtara for construction of road from Bariarpur to Karmatar. Pursuant to the said Notice Inviting Tender, the appellant-M/s Excel Venture Pvt. Ltd. and one Ongkar Construction- 6th respondent participated and both of them qualified in their technical bid. Thereafter, the financial bid was opened and they have quoted the same rates. According to the appellant, the Executive Engineer forwarded the same to the Superintending Engineer making note that 6th respondent has not attached the documents of last five years regarding Civil Engineering construction performed in last five years. According to the appellant, the Superintending Engineer forwarded the notes of the Executive Engineer to the Chief Engineer making recommendation that the work be allotted to the appellant. 3. The grievance of the appellant is that the Chief Engineer without assigning any reason for differing with the recommendation of the Superintending Engineer approved the work to be allotted to the 6th respondent. The appellant sent a legal notice through his Advocate to the Secretary, Rural Engineering Organization, which was received in his office on 12.1.2007. The appellant, thereafter, filed W.P. (C) No. 358 of 2007 seeking for a direction upon the respondents to execute the work agreement with the appellant, who was only found to be eligible for the allotment of work in Grade-I. The writ petition was dismissed on 13.3.2007 holding that the appellant has been awarded big work in terms of the value of the work is concerned and the 6th respondent was awarded the work in question and hence there was no arbitrariness in allotting the work in question to the 6th respondent. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant has filed this Letters Patent Appeal. 4. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that when the appellant quoted the same rate as that of respondent no. 6, the respondents-authorities were not justified in awarding the work to the 6th respondent. 6. 4. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that when the appellant quoted the same rate as that of respondent no. 6, the respondents-authorities were not justified in awarding the work to the 6th respondent. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that since the appellant was already awarded two other works, the work in question was awarded to the 6th respondent and, therefore there was no arbitrariness in awarding the work to the 6th respondent. The learned counsel however submitted that the work in question was already executed and, therefore nothing survives for consideration in this Letters Patent Appeal. 7. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent, submitted that the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition and furthermore the work in question which has been allotted to the 6th respondent has already been completed. 8. The case of the appellant is that the appellant was senior in registration than the 6th respondent. In this regard, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that as per the Circular, benefit of seniority can only be availed once in one financial year and in REO Works Division, Jamtara, the appellant- Excel Venture Pvt. Ltd. has already been awarded two works. The appellant has been awarded an work of Rs. 2,48,22,260/- from the same Notice Inviting Tender, which is the biggest work, as far as the work value is concerned. The appellant has been allotted another work order of Rs. 2,37,66,513.00 under the Scheme of Pradhan Mantri Gram Sarak Yojna in the financial year 2006-07 in the same work division. 9. Since the appellant has already been awarded the biggest work in terms of the value of the work and respondent no. 6 was awarded another work, the learned Single Judge found that there was no arbitrariness in allotting the work in question to the 6th respondent. 10. As has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, since the work in question, that is, construction of road from Bariarpur to Karmatar has already been completed, nothing survives for consideration in this Letters Patent Appeal. The Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.