Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1019 (ORI)

Pradipta Kumar Rout v. State of Odisha

2017-09-11

B.R.SARANGI, VINEET SARAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : VINEET SARAN, J. For performance of some contract works under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY), the opposite parties had issued tender call notices, to which there was no response. Instructions have been issued by the Ministry of Rural Development, Department of Rural Development, Government of India dated 31.12.2013, wherein it was provided that in the circumstances where there is no response to the tender call notice, then a District Level Committee, headed by the Collector, may decide the awarding of contract. 2. It is contended that there was no response to the tender notices because the area where the work was to be carried out is Naxlilte infected. In the aforesaid circumstances, in terms of the aforesaid instructions dated 31.12.2013, the petitioner had applied to the District Level Committee, giving his offer for carrying out the work in question, and his offer was accepted on 18.01.2016, in terms of which, after completing certain formalities by the petitioner, the work was to be completed within 12 calendar months. It is contended that because there was threat by the Naxlites and Maoist group, which had also carried out certain attacks in the area, the petitioner could not furnish the requisite security amount within time, so as to get the agreement executed. Thereafter, when the situation calmed down, the petitioner made a representation to be allowed to furnish the security and execute the agreement in terms of the order dated 18.01.2016. 3. The matter was then placed before the District Level Committee and by communication dated 21.05.2016 of the Executive Engineer, the petitioner was informed that the District Level Committee had rejected the offer of the petitioner, meaning thereby that the opposite parties refused to grant extension of time for furnishing the security amount etc. and execute the agreement. 4. The petitioner contends that Joint Grievance Cell of the Collector considered the grievance of the petitioner on 03.10.2016 and thereafter the Asst. Collector communicated to the Executive Engineer on 17.10.2016 that the Joint Grievance Cell of the Collector had decided to award the contract in favour of the petitioner, for which the agreement may be executed. Relying on this, the petitioner contends that the agreement should be executed in terms of the order dated 18.01.2016. In the meantime, a fresh tender call notice was also issued on 01.12.2016. Relying on this, the petitioner contends that the agreement should be executed in terms of the order dated 18.01.2016. In the meantime, a fresh tender call notice was also issued on 01.12.2016. The petitioner has thus filed this writ petition with the prayer for quashing the fresh tender call notice dated 01.12.2016 and also for a direction to the opposite parties to execute the agreement with the petitioner in terms of the initial order dated 18.01.2016. 5. We have heard Mr. P.C. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.P. Pradhan, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for State opposite parties. Pleadings having been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 6. As regards the first prayer, which is for quashing the tender call notice dated 01.12.2016, it is admitted between the parties that in response to the said notice, no bidder had come forward and as such, the said prayer has become infructuous. 7. As regards the second prayer for direction to the opposite parties to enter into an agreement with the petitioner for the work in question in terms of the initial order dated 18.01.2016, it may be stated that the said order dated 18.01.2016 was passed in compliance of the instructions issued by the Central Government on 31.12.2013, whereby the District Level Committee had accepted the offer of the petitioner for execution of the work on certain terms. Admittedly, the petitioner did not comply with the terms within the time granted, as set out in the order dated 18.01.2016. The extension of time, as prayed for by filing a representation, was rejected by the District Level Committee, which was communicated to the petitioner on 21.05.2016. The subsequent order of the Collector, said to have been passed by the Joint Grievance Cell, on 03.10.2016 would not be of much relevance, as it is not the Joint Grievance Cell of the Collector which would look into the matter but the District Level Committee which was to take a decision, which had already taken a decision by rejecting the representation of the petitioner. 8. 8. It is noteworthy that the Collector is the Chairman of the District Level Committee and as such, once the committee headed by the Collector had already rejected the representation of the petitioner, another committee cannot direct that the work be awarded in favour of the petitioner on the instructions given by the Collector. As such, the second prayer made by the petitioner for awarding the contract in favour of the petitioner also does not deserve to be granted. However, considering the facts of this case and keeping in view that none had come forward in response to the earlier tender call notices issued in the year 2015 and thereafter also on 01.12.2016, we direct that in case the petitioner gives a fresh offer before the Executive Engineer for carrying out the work in question, the same shall be placed by the Executive Engineer before the District Level Committee, which shall consider the same in accordance with law, and also the instructions issued by the Central Government on 31.12.2013, as expeditiously as possible. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.