FRONTIER ENGINEERING Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Tender Notice was published in the issue of 'the Assam Tribune' dated 23rd September, 2003 inviting tenders for the following works :

(2.) THE recommendations of the Tender Committee, therefore, reached the table of the Hon'ble Minister. The departmental Minister in his note dated 20.10.2003 while agreeing with the recommendation of the Tender Committee in so far as the lowest tenderer is concerned, recorded the fact that as per information received from the Project Engineer, the work of permanent protection embankment at down stream of Dhansiri barrage from ch. 1325m to 1435m has been physically and successfully completed by the Respondent No. 5 and therefore, the matter required the re -consideration of the Tender Committee. Thereafter, it appears that the matter was reconsidered by the Tender Committee on 21st October, 2003 and the Tender Committee reviewed its earlier decision by holding that the Respondent No. 5 had completed 90% of the works in question and what was left, are minor works. On the aforesaid basis, the Tender Committee reviewing its earlier decision, recommended the Respondent No. 5 for the grant of the contract which recommendations have been accepted by the Hon'ble Minister on 31st October, 2003. However even before that, apprehending that the grant of the contract would be made in favour of the Respondent No. 5, the instant writ petition was filed on 22nd October, 2003 wherein an interim order was passed by this Court on 22.10.2003 restraining the authority from awarding the contract work to any of the tenderers. Though there is some controversy as to whether the works have been allotted to the Respondent No. 5 in the meantime and if so, whether the interim order passed by this Court on 22.10.2003 has been violated, the writ petition itself is being disposed of, it will not be necessary to go into the aforesaid controversy.

(3.) THE case projected by Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the Tender Committee while reconsidering the matter, relied upon a letter dated 20th October, 2003 written by the jurisdictional Executive Engineer certifying that the Respondent No. 5 had completed 90% of the works in question. By placing the aforesaid letter, which forms a part of the record, Mr. Bhuyan has contended that the said letter discloses that it was written by the Executive Engineer pursuant to the verbal instruction of the Chief Engineer issued on 18.10.2003. On 18.10.2003, the first set of recommendation of the lender Committee in favour of the writ petitioner was already made. In such a situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the facts surrounding the issuance of the letter dated 20.10.2003 are highly suspicious and intriguing and therefore, this Court must proceed to draw the necessary advert inferences. What prompted the Executive Engineer to write the said letter dated 20.10.2003 and further, what prompted the Chief Engineer to make an enquiry on 18.10.2003, it is argued, remains undisclosed. Continuing further, Mr. Bhuyan has argued that the note dated 31.10.2003 of the Hon'ble Minister approving the grant of the contract in favour of the Respondent No. 5 clearly recites that the writ petitioner is yet to complete 80% of the works relating to Bordikrari Irrigation Project (Construction of Head works). What had prompted the Hon'ble Minister to record the said fact and what were the circumstances antecedent, again, are mysterious. Though there is a letter dated 18.10.2003 of the jurisdictional Executive Engineer addressed to the Chief Engineer in respect of the extent of completion of the work under the Bordikrari Irrigation Scheme in the records produced, what had prompted the Executive Engineer to write the said letter, has not been disclosed. It is, therefore, argued by Mr. Bhuyn that the performance of the writ petitioner while executing the Bordikrari Irrigation Scheme had prevailed upon the Hon'ble Minister in accepting the recommendation of the Tender Committee made in favour of the Respondent No. 5 and, therefore, in the absence of satisfactory explanation as to how the said matter had erupted, this Court again must draw an adverse inference to the effect that the contract has not been granted fairly and reasonably and by a transparent process. Lastly, it has been argued by Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner that the manner in which the works were allotted to the Respondent No. 5 in spite of the interim order dated 22.10.2003 passed by this Court would disclose the anxiety of the official respondents to have the works executed by the Respondent No. 5 alone. It has, therefore, been argued that this Court, on a cumulative consideration of the several facts noticed above, must conclude that the grant of the contract made in favour of the Respondent No. 5 is for reasons extraneous and collateral and such grant, therefore, should be interfered with by this Court.