BHAGWAN DIN, J. - (1.) THE petitioners by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seek Indulgence of this court for issuing a writ In the nature of certiorari quashing the tender proceedings, which took place pursuant to the tender notice dated 18.8.1998 published in local Newspaper "Dainik Jagran". Further seeking a writ of certiorari that the work order regarding High Tension, Low Tension line and Street Light of Trivenipuram Avas Yojana issued in favour of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 may also be quashed. It is further prayed that the respondents may be commanded by a writ or order in the nature of mandamus to negotiate with the petitioners, who have offered over all lowest tender in pursuance of the tender notice dated 18.8.1998.
(2.) ALLAHABAD Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) floated the tender notice inviting the offers from the contractors who were registered with the Authority and were having certificate from the Director, Electrical Safety Directorate, State of U. P., Lucknow, as Class A approved contractors. Considering it a sensitive and specialised technical work, the Authority gave priority to those contractors who possess requisite know -how, technical competence and the equipments, capital, etc. to undertake such specialised work and therefore, required the tenderers to submit a technical offer and financial offer as well. Among the tenderers only 5 could fulfil the requirements, hence they were allowed to tender their offer. The tenders were opened on 28.9.1998. The Executive Engineer, considering the rates offered by respondent No. 5 for the H.T. & L.T. line work, being the lowest, started negotiation vide his letter dated 11.12.1998 suggesting the respondent No. 5 to reduce the rate offered by him. The respondent No. 5 vide his letter dated 18.12.1998 showed his willingness to reduce his rate by 0.15%. The Executive Engineer was not satisfied with such an offer in reduction of the rate, therefore, he wrote again a letter on 27.1.1999 to respondent No. 5 to further reduce his rate. On this the respondent No. 5 by his letter dated 28.1.1999 offered to reduce the rate to 12.49% above the scheduled rate. The petitioner on having information about the reduction of the rates by the respondent No, 5 wrote a letter dated 4.2.1999 contained in Annexure -6 to the counter -affidavit of Shailendra Singh offering to work at the rates submitted by respondent No. 5. So, the other tenderers also expressed their willingness to reduce the rates to the extent offered by the respondent No. 5. In pursuance to the offers made by the tenderers and also having regard to the fact that the work has to be completed within a period of 8 months, a Committee consisting of Executive Engineer. Superintending Engineer, Chief Accounts Officer and the Secretary of the Authority was constituted. The Committee submitted its report dated 18.2.1998 recommending the distribution of work among all the tenderers. The Secretary of the Authority dissented with the recommendation. He refused to sign the report. Consequent upon this report was not taken into consideration by the higher authorities. However, the tender which was opened on 28.9.1998 was accepted on 4.6.1999 and by work order dated 5.6.1999 the respondent No. 5 was directed to carry out the work and submit the stamp papers for agreement. The respondent No. 5 executed agreement deed on 7.6.1999 and then completing the formalities the respondent No. 5 started work. We heard Sri C.B. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri A. K. Mishra learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Bhagwatl Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5.
(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the tender notice was floated for the combined work of H.T. & L.T. line and the Street light, work. There has been no bifurcation of the work in two parts. Subsequently, with the object to defeat the interest of the petitioner the work has been bifurcated. Petitioner had offered lowest rate for the work of H.T. & L.T. line and Street Light to the tune of Rs. 1,59,16,451.78 while respondent No. 5 had offered second lowest rate to the tune of Rs. 1,59,16,461.03. Thus, the petitioner tendered the lowest rate for the execution of the work, that the negotiation ought to have been done between the lowest tenderer and the Authority, whereas, the negotiation has been made with the respondent No. 5, who is the second lowest tenderer, that the tender of respondent No. 5 has been Illegally, arbitrarily and unreasonably accepted by the Tender Committee, without showing any cogent reason. It is further contended that the Authority has not framed any rule/policy regulating the contract.;