- (1.) It is submitted by Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that though the petitioner was L 1 (lowest one), but he was not awarded the work due to the malafide alleged against respondent nos. 3 (S. N. Choudhary, the Member-Distribution, Jharkhand State Electricity Board) and 7 (Mritunjay Prasad Singh, Account Officer, Technical Services, Jharkhand State Electricity Board). He further submitted that without cancelling the earlier NIT, a fresh NIT has been issued and moreover there are contradictory statements by different respondents about the date of cancellation and the Officer who cancelled it, and in any event the notice of cancellation was made after the fresh NIT was published.
(2.) On the other hand, Mr. V. P. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-Electricity Board submitted that as per the terms of NIT, the Board was competent to cancel it without notice. He further submitted that so far as the allegation of malafide is concerned, the complaint has been referred to the Vigilance department for inquiry. He further submitted that petitioner can not claim issuance of work order only on the ground that it was L 1, and the Board is justified in looking into its own interest. He also denied and disputed the submissions made on behalf of Mr. Ajit Kumar. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 3 & 4 also denied and disputed the allegation of malafide.
(3.) When I asked whether the price bid of the new NIT has been opened or not, Mr. V. P. Singh on instruction submitted that in view of interim order passed by this Court, only technical bid has been opened and not the price bid.;