- (1.) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 27.8.2001, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 2136 of 2001, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ application filed by the petitioner appellant.
(2.) THE brief facts, leading to the filing of this appeal, may be summaried as under : - - A notice inviting tender was issued on 30.9.2000, which, inter alia, asked the intending tenderers to submit their offers with respect to various items of work. One of the items listed in this tender notice was the work relating to "Spill Way Group B" and the estimated cost of the work was mentioned at Rs. 7.70 lacs. The tender notice required that all the intending tenderers should deposit along with the tender documents, the earnest money as was mentioned in the notice inviting tender. Against the aforesaid work of Spill Way, the earnest money required to be deposited against Column No. 5 was Rs. 15,400/ -. It is the undisputed case of the respondents that the petitioner -appellant submitted his tender documents within the time fixed in the NIT. The tender documents were accompanied by the deposit of earnest money to the tune of Rs. 15,500/ -. The tender submitted by the appellant, however, was rejected on the ground that the requisite prescribed amount of the earnest money was not deposited with the tender documents. According to the respondents, the petitioner appellant should have deposited a sum of Rs. 15,600/ -, as the earnest money, and since he deposited only Rs. 15,500/ -, his tender was liable to be rejected. After rejecting the tender of the petitioner -appellant, the work in question was awarded to respondent No. 6.
(3.) YESTERDAY , when the matter came up for consideration, on realising that vide the judgment under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge on 27.3.2001, because of the dismissal of the writ application, the interim stay order stood vacated, we were not sure whether the respondent No. 6 has started the contract work in question or riot. Therefore, we called upon the respondent No. 3, Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Ranchi, to file an affidavit informing as to whether the respondent No. 6 has started the work in question. An affidavit by respondent No. 3 has been field today in which it has been stated that the respondent No. 6 has started the work. Because of the fact that the work has been started by respondent No. 6, we do not intend to disturb the present work because restoring the status quo ante shall be against the public interest. However, on our finding that the action of the respondents in rejecting the tender document of the appellant was illegal, unconstitutional and totally invalid, we will have no hesitation in compensating the appellant by awarding damages in this respect. We shall now find out whether the action of the respondent was constitutional and legally correct or not.;