Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 743 (JHR)

Prabhu Mandal v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-04-03

ANANDA SEN

body2018
ORDER Ananda Sen, J. - The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to show cause as to why his bid submitted pursuant to the urgent notice inviting Tender No. 2/2016-17 has not been considered. He further prays for setting aside the work which was awarded to respondent no. 5 pursuant to the aforesaid tender notice. 2. The petitioner claims that pursuant to the Tender Notice No. 2/2016-17 issued by the respondent no.4, the petitioner placed his bid but surprisingly his bid was not considered and the work has been awarded to the respondent no.5. He submits that the Unique Contractor Account Number (UCAN) of the petitioner was valid thus the bid could not have been cancelled. He submits that the Unique Contractor Account Number was also not required to be produced by the petitioner as per the tender document. He submits that with malafide intention the respondents have arbitrarily rejected the tender of the petitioner. He submits that on this score alone the writ application filed by the petitioner needs to be allowed and the work order by which work is allotted to the respondent no. 5 needs to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner''s UCAN certificate was not valid. Further submits that the petitioner was suggested to furnish his income tax return for the period 2016-17 which the petitioner has failed to do so, thus his case was not considered. He submits that the work was for a limited period. A boundary wall was to be constructed. He submits that the work was in three parts, for increasing the height of the boundary wall of Kasturba Gandhi Girls Residential School, Kundahit as well as for construction of PCC Road from Kundahit to the gate of the aforesaid schools and for construction of Panchayat Bhawan, Dighari, Block Narayanpur, District Jamtara. He submits that the tender was finalized in favour of the respondent no. 5 and the work was allotted to him and he has already completed all the three works which was allotted to him. Learned counsel for the State lastly submits that since the work has already been completed by the respondent no. 5, this writ application has become infructuous. 4. 5 and the work was allotted to him and he has already completed all the three works which was allotted to him. Learned counsel for the State lastly submits that since the work has already been completed by the respondent no. 5, this writ application has become infructuous. 4. I heard, learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents and the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court as reported in (2005) 8 SCC 438 in the case of M/s. Subhash Projects & Marketing Ltd. v. W.B. Power Development Corpn. Ltd and Others referred by the petitioner 5. After hearing the arguments of the parties and after going through the records, I find that the petitioner is claiming that he has valid UCAN certificate. Annexure-3 is the UCAN certificate which the petitioner annexed in this writ application, which shows that validity time of UCAN certificate with Building Construction Department (BCD) is 10.05.2021. The State has also produced a UCAN certificate which was purportedly produced by the petitioner at the time of submitting his bid. The said certificate is Annexure-B to the counter affidavit filed by the State. After perusal of the said UCAN certificate, I find that the said UCAN certificate is valid with Building Construction Department till 25.02.2016. Thus there are rival claim by the parties. It cannot be decided in this writ application as to whether the petitioner had actually submitted the UCAN certificate which was valid till 2021 before the department at the time of submitting of his bid or not. Further, I find that the work which was allotted to respondent no.5 has already been completed. 6. The petitioner is claiming that he has been deprived of his profits and is entitled to get damages. He alleges malice against Superintending Engineer, Dumka. Though he alleged malice against the Superintending Engineer, Dumka that he is favouring respondent no. 5, yet the said person has not been made a party by name. 7. In view of the fact mentioned above and that the work has already been completed. I find no grounds to interfere in this writ application. If the petitioner claims any damage he is at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court for his remedy. 8. With the aforesaid observations, this writ application stands dismissed.