JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)In this writ petition, prayer is to quash letter No. Bhavarn, Moc(C)Yoj. Vi- Vidhi-B-133/2001-1617(bha) Anu, dated 24-9-2001 (Annexure-9) by which the proposed construction of hundred bedded minority Hospital for boys at Nawada has been given to the Contractor (Respondent No. 5) and further to direct the respondents to allot the said work to the petitioner.
(2.)It seems that earlier also on apprehension that his case would not be considered by the respondent-authorities, petitioner moved this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 9393 of 2001 and this Court finding that till the date of the order admittedly no final decision in pursuance to the tender notice had been taken and that there was nothing in the tender notice to give any cause of action, found the writ petition to be premature and vide order dated 16-8-2001 (Annexure 1) permitted it to be withdrawn with a liberty to the petitioner to agitate the matter, if aggrieved, before the appropriate forum. Pursuant to the said order the petitioner agitated his grievance before the authority by filing a petition on 22-9-2001, which was not considered at all, and even though the petitioner is seniormost Contractor and eligible to take the proposed work, but has been denied the work on the sole ground that registration with Building Construction Division is the basic required eligibility which the petitioner does not possess. According to the case of the respondent-Officials in the counter-affidavit, after bifurcation of the Public Works Department in Road Construction Department and Building Construction Department by notification No. 3205(B), dated 28-6-1983 (Annexure A) the respondent-State had made the registration in the bifurcated Building Construction Department compulsory for Contractors to execute work in that very Department. However, those Contractors were exempted from such registration, who were registered with erstwhile Public Works Department before 31-3-1982, and, those, who were registered during the period 31-3-1982 to 28-6-1983 were given three months' time for registration in the Building Construction Department. It is stated that the registration of the petitioner with P.W.D. is of a period beyond this deadline, and, as such, he is not eligible to take up the work in question which is in the Building Construction Division. It is further stated that before allotment of work to respondent No. 5, the tender of all participants including the petitioner were considered and after proper scrutiny the work were not allotted to the petitioner, who failed to satisfy the authority to be suitable amongst the tenderers for the execution of the work. However, except regarding the eligibility no other reason has been furnished as to why the petitioner has failed to satisfy the authority to be suitable amongst the tenderers for the execution of work.
(3.)According to the case of the petitioner, he is registered category 'A' Contractor in Building and Road both, which is apparent from perusal of registration certificate (Annexure 4), and the same has been renewed vide Annexure 5. It is stated in the reply affidavit that the petitioner was given/ allotted so many contract works in the Building Construction Department up to the value of Rupees three crores including the work of construction of Civil Courts Building at Nawada, which he had done satisfactorily up to the satisfaction of this Court and handed over. As regards letter contained in Annexure A, it is stated that the same was not notified in the Gazette at all. However, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner that is not relevant as the petitioner had registration for road and building both vide Annexure 4 and renewed vide Annexure 5. It is not disputed that the petitioner is the seniormost Contractor and that by virtue of the said registration he was allotted many contract works in Building Construction Department including one relating to construction of Civil Courts Building at Nawada, which he satisfactorily completed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, by virtue of the provision, contained in Annexure 7, if the rate quoted by the Contractors are same then the work is to be given to the seniormost Contractor, but, in the instant case the petitioner has wrongly been denied of such preference on the sole ground that he is not registered with Building Construction Department, which is wholly arbitrary and mala fide in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.