PRAKASH TATIA, J. - (1.) HEARD the counsel for the parties.
(2.) IT has been alleged by the petitioner that he is a member of the political party and raising the cause of the public. He came to know that one work has been awarded of the contractor even prior to the floating of the tender inviting the offer from the prospective bidders. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is apparent from the notice inviting tender in the name of e procurement notice, Annexure1 that the notice was published in the newspaper of 1.3.2013 and the last date for submissions of the offer was only 4.3.2013, therefore, there was only three days given to the bidders. The newspaper cutting clearly indicates that the work was started even prior to the publication of the said tender notice. It is submitted that as per the stand of the respondent in the counter, only two bidders were, according to the petitioner are only relative came forward for the work and out of which, one has been given work contract. Therefore, it is nothing but a device to grab the government money by giving the contract to the persons of their choice. Learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State submitted that the petitioner himself has personal interest in the matter and the facts as stated are not correct. In the counter it has been stated that the EngineerinChief gave approval for the work vide letter no.1207(S) Dated 16.2.2013 and thereafter the tender was uploaded on the website and then it was published in the newspaper . In the tender notice itself it has been mentioned that it is emergent required work of the road and that too of only one Kilometer which is near the railway siding of Madhupur. Before this work was given to the contractor, the Department was doing some work which has been published as the work done by the contractor.
(3.) WE have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. It is clear from the reply affidavit that the work was not a thought of the day, but even the Engineer inChief gave approval for the work on 16.2.2013 and thereafter this process started and this was found to be emergent work having a cost of almost Rupees Sixty Lakhs then in that situation we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out for our interference in public interest litigation jurisdiction. The writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed.;