RAJ NARAYAN PAUL Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order dated 27. 06. 07 communicated by the Chairman, Dhubri Municipal Board, Dhubri Respondent No. 4 accepting the offer of the respondent No. 5 for construction of the Lainey Market (Ground floor) for Group B work at Dhubri Town, Ward No. 5 and the allotment of the said construction work in favour of Respondent No. 5 on the basis of tender notice is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) THE Chairman, Municipal Board, Dhubri i. e. respondent No. 4 by notice dated 24. 2. 06 invited sealed tender in prescribed form for construction of Lainey Market (Ground Floor) under IDSMT, at Ward No. 5, Dhubri, Assam Group A and Group B, from Govt. registered contractors of Class-I (A,b,c) category. The bidders were asked not to tender on percentage based rate. They were further asked to submit current Sales Tax, Income Tax certificates, details of past experience of works of similar nature for last three years, tools and machinery etc. The total value of the Group B work was Rs. 22,06,856/ -. The writ petitioner being an eligible Govt. registered Class-I (B) Contractor belonging to the O. B. C. category submitted a tender as per terms of the notice aforesaid. On 24. 05. 06 tenders were opened and out of three bidders including the petitioner and the private respondent No. 5, the amount quoted by the petitioner was found to be Rs. 21,52,717/- while the rate quoted by respondent No. 5 stood at Rs. 22,06,833/ -. The petitioner also annexed two works experience certificates dated 01. 10. 2003 and 15. 03. 2005 issued by the Executive Engineer, P. W. D. Roads, Dhubri, Road Division.

(3.) NOTICE being issued, the respondent No. 4 refuted the petitioner's claim. By filing an affidavit-in-opposition, he stated that the Tender Committee upon scrutiny and consideration of all the relevant documents, along with technical report, found the respondnet No. 5 suitable for the work and accordingly awarded the contract to the respondent No. 5. A copy of the Minute of the Meeting of the Tender Committee, held on 17. 06. 06 has also been annexed as Annexure-A to the affidavit-in-opposition. The Deponent further stated that the petitioner, while submitting tender application, did not fill up all the columns of the tender papers and that he failed to submit the necessary papers/certificates regarding experience in respect of construction of buildings. The Deponent further denied the petitioner's contention tht he had submitted certificates dated 1. 10. 03 and 15. 3. 03 as mentioned in the writ petition. It was further contended that the petitioner did not comply with all the essential terms and conditions of the tender. The Deponent categorically denied the allegations that the work was allotted to the respondent No. 5 on the ground that he was son of the Chairman, Dhubri-Gauripur Development authority. Denying the allegation of malafide, the deponent stated that the petitioner's allegation, that the respondent No. 5 had no previous experience, was not correct. In her affidavit-in-opposition, the respondent No. 4 stated that the work was allotted to the respondent No. 5 by following proper procedure and on merit. It is also stated, in the said affidavit-in-opposition, that 90% of the work had already been completed. Denying the contention made in the affidavit-in-opposition aforesaid, the petitioner also submitted an affidavit-in -reply. In the said affidavit-in-reply, the petitioner contended that the work was illegally allotted to the respondent No. 5 and that the claim that 90% of the work was completed was not correct. According to the petitioner only 10% of the work was completed.