Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 844 (GAU)

Donyi Polo Enterprises v. State Of A. P.

2024-06-11

KARDAK ETE

body2024
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. I. Riram, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1-6, Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel, for the respondent No.7 (Proprietor of Respondent No. 7 expired during the pendency of the Writ Petitions) and Mr. L. Perme, learned counsel for the respondent No. 8. 2. As the issues involved in this batch of Writ Petitions are same, the Writ Petitions are heard and dispose of by this common order. 3. The common challenge made in these proceedings is to the impugned order dated 10.10.2018, issued by the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, whereby the work orders issued to the petitioners pursuant to the NIT dated 04.04.2018, for construction of Porter Tracks, have been directed to be cancelled and to initiate the process of re-tendering. 4. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that pursuant to the NIT No. WRDPN/NIT/2017-18 dated 04.04.2018, for construction of Porter Tracks at different locations in Siang District, in 8 (eight) packages, issued by the Executive Engineer, Panging WRD Division, the petitioners were awarded the works vide order dated 28.05.2018. The said work orders were issued after due process of tender. It is the contention of the petitioners that they have executed the works as per specifications and have duly completed the same within the stipulated completion period of 3 (three) months. 5. In the meantime, some unsuccessful bidders filed a Writ Petition before this Court, being WP(C) No.280 (AP)/2018 (M/s. Er. Oyin Tamuk and others vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and others), assailing the awarding of contracts to the petitioners. The Writ Petition was disposed of on 13.06.2018, at the motion stage with a direction to the respondent authorities to dispose of the representation(s) of the writ petitioners therein. 6. Pursuant to the order dated 13.06.2018 passed in the Writ Petition (Supra), the respondent authority i.e. the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh vide the impugned order dated 10.10.2018, allegedly upon consideration of materials had concluded that consideration of ineligible bidders in technical bid for financial/price bid by ignoring the stipulated terms and conditions of bidding document is a violation of stipulated rules and illegal ab initio. of Arunachal Pradesh vide the impugned order dated 10.10.2018, allegedly upon consideration of materials had concluded that consideration of ineligible bidders in technical bid for financial/price bid by ignoring the stipulated terms and conditions of bidding document is a violation of stipulated rules and illegal ab initio. The L-1 bidders have been ignored due to wrong interpretation of appropriate clauses of the CPWD Works Manual and rejection of L-1 bidders is a gross violation of CVC guidelines, CPWD Works Manual and guidelines issued by Planning and Finance Department. Accordingly, the concerned authority was directed to cancel the work orders issued to the petitioners and to initiate process of re-tendering. Hence, these present petitions. 7. Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the impugned order has been passed without hearing the petitioners as the petitioners were the successful bidders and having been found to be most responsive and after following the due process, they were awarded the works for construction of Porter Tracks in different locations in Siang District. He submits that in the WP(C) No.280 (AP)/2018, though the petitioners were arrayed as party respondents, no notice was issued to them and the same was disposed of on 13.06.2018, at the motion stage. He further submits that since the period of completion in terms of the contract was three (3) months only, by the time the impugned order was issued, the petitioners have completed the works allotted to them in terms of the NIT dated 04.04.2018. He has referred to the status report issued by the concerned Engineer, annexed with the Writ Petition, to substantiate his submission that by the time the impugned order was issued, the Engineer concerned has clearly given the status report that the works have been physically completed. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order dated 10.10.2018, being not sustainable, may be set aside and quashed. 8. Mr. I. Riram, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate. while referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State respondents, submits that the impugned order dated 10.10.2018 had been rendered in compliance of the order of this Court passed in WP(C) No.280 (AP)/2018, whereby clear direction has been issued to the respondent authorities to verify the original records with regard to the NIT and to pass appropriate order. while referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State respondents, submits that the impugned order dated 10.10.2018 had been rendered in compliance of the order of this Court passed in WP(C) No.280 (AP)/2018, whereby clear direction has been issued to the respondent authorities to verify the original records with regard to the NIT and to pass appropriate order. On having been examined carefully, it was found that the L-1 bidders were ignored due to wrong interpretation of appropriate clauses of the CPWD Works Manual and such rejection of L-1 bidders is a gross violation of CVC guidelines as well as the guidelines issued by Planning and Finance Department. Therefore, the authority has directed to cancel the work orders issued to the petitioners and to initiate the process of re-tendering. 9. Mr. I. Riram, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, submits that though initially the Assistant Engineer of the concerned project has issued a status report indicating the physical completion of the projects by the petitioners, subsequently, he has filed an affidavit indicating that said status report was issued under duress. However, by placing certain documents, he has submitted that in few locations constructions of Porter Tracks have been completed and in some locations certain percentage of works have been executed and in some other the works are yet to be started. He further submits that in view of the pendency of these Writ Petitions and in pursuant to the impugned order dated 10.10.2018, no further progress have been made in the entire project. 10. Ms. N. Danggen and Mr. L. Perme, learned counsels for the private respondents, while disputing the assertion by the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to the completion of the works by the petitioners, on the basis of the stand taken by the State respondents, fairly submits that the respondent authorities ought to have heard the petitioners before passing the impugned order dated 10.10.2018. While not admitting that the petitioners were legally allotted the works, as the petitioners were not the L-1 bidders, whereas the respondents were the L-1 bidders in the tender process, pursuant to the NIT dated 04.04.2018, submits that the matter may be remanded back to the respondent authorities for re-consideration, by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the private respondents. 11. 11. Due consideration has been extended to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 12. On perusal of the order of this Court passed in Writ Petition (Supra) vide dated 13.06.2018, it is noticed that the Writ Petition was disposed of at the motion stage with a direction to the petitioners to submit a fresh representation stating their grievances and the respondent authorities were directed to verify the records in original with regard to the NIT dated 04.04.2018 and to consider and dispose of the representations by reasoned order, by giving an opportunity of hearing, if necessary, to the petitioners. It does not indicate any opportunity to be provided to the petitioners who were arrayed as party respondents. It is needless to observed that since the petitioners were arrayed as respondents in Writ Petition (Supra), they ought to have been directed to be heard. However, since the respondents have already considered the matters and passed the impugned order dated 10.10.2018, no blame can be attributed to the respondent authorities in strict sense. However, admittedly, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners, which is a violation of the cardinal Principle of Natural Justice. 13. Having considered that the petitioners were not given an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order dated 10.10.2018 and in view of an order this Court proposes to pass (infra), this Court would not go into the merits as to whether the work orders were issued legally or not, which would be decided by the respondent authorities. This Court would not also embark on the disputed issue of whether the petitioners have completed the works or not as well as, as to whether the status report was issued by the concerned Engineer under duress or not. 14. Having considered that the petitioners were not given an opportunity of hearing before issuance of the impugned order dated 10.10.2018 coupled with the fair submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents, in the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that impugned order dated 10.10.2018 cannot be sustained and it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the respondent authority, particularly the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh for a fresh consideration after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the private respondents. of Arunachal Pradesh for a fresh consideration after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the private respondents. 15. Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the respondent authorities, particularly to the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh to decide the matter afresh, by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the private respondents. The exercise directed herein above shall be done within a period of not later than 2 (two) months from today. 16. In view of above, the impugned order dated 10.10.2018, passed by the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, is hereby set aside and quashed. 17. With the above observations and direction, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. However, no order as to costs.