Decided on October 18,2013

Kamlendra Chaudhary And Others Appellant
State Of Uttarakhand Through Secretary Public Works Department And Others Respondents


Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS before this Court are contractors of Category 'B', 'C' and 'D' in the State of Uttarakhand. They are presently aggrieved by the action of the State authorities which are respondents before this Court, as the respondents have called for a bid for the construction of a number of roads in Kashipur (District Udham Singh Nagar). However, these bids are invited only from 'A' Category contractors, as the total estimated cost of the contract is Rs.8.22 crores. The main plank of the argument of the petitioners before this Court is that the major part of the construction of the road is by way of CC Tiles and the total number of roads are about 88 in number which have been wrongly clubbed into "one project" and one work, thereby pushing up the total worth of the project to Rs.8.22 crores. Had the total construction been split into 88 projects, then even small contractors like 'B', 'C' and 'D' category would have been allowed to participate. But in a project of Rs.8.22 crores, Category 'B', 'C' and 'D' contractors cannot even participate! Along with this argument runs another argument of the petitioner, which is that this has been done by the respondents with a motive to drive out the small contractors from the bid process and this infact is creating a monopoly in favour of large contractors.
(2.) THE State, in its counter affidavit, though has refuted all the contentions of the petitioners and has said that they are only following the Procurement Rules, 2008 of the State of Uttarakhand. Rule 3 (10) of the Uttarakhand Procurement Rules, 2008 reads as under: - (1)... (2)... (3)(1)... (2)... (3)... (4)... (5)... (6)... (7)... (8)... (9)... (10) Efforts shall be made to bulk the demands as far as practicable so as to achieve advantage of lower rates. A demand shall not be split to bring down the value of procurement nor divided into small quantities to make piecemeal purchases to avoid the necessity of obtaining the sanction of higher authority required with reference to the estimated value of the total demand. In other words, as per the Rules, efforts shall be made as far as practicable to bulk the demand and not to split the demand as the petitioner would argue. The reason, why this has been done is to cut down the cost which is in the interest of the State as well as in the State Exchequer. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show to this Court any provision of law which has been violated by the respondents in taking the recourse as per the above Rules. Petitioners have also not been able to show that the action of the respondents is purely in order to give benefit to a particular category of contractor. Learned counsel for the petitioner then points out that in some cases the State has split one work into many in order to facilitate the participation of the small contractors like the petitioners but it is not doing as far the present work, be that as it may. The fact remains that there is no anomaly in the action of the respondents by bulking the demand which is purely in order to cut down the cost.
(3.) IN view of the above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. On request of the Counsel for the petitioners it is hereby directed that a certified copy of this order be given to the petitioners today itself on payment of usual charges.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.