LAL MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND
LAWS(JHAR)-2013-11-25
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on November 25,2013

LAL MOHAN SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

D.N.PATEL, J. - (1.) PRESENT petitioner, through the instant Public Interest Litigation petition, prays for the following reliefs: (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) upon the respondent authorities, specially the respondent no. 1, 2 and 5 to show cause as to how the respondent no.6 was allowed to issue short/limited tender and allot work order for execution of the various items of work as indicated in the Notice Inviting Tender allegedly issued on the 4th October, 2010 vide paper publication in the daily Hindi newspaper namely "Dainik Jagran" Bhagalpur Edition without there being any prior allotment of fund with regard to the items of work detailed in the so -called notice inviting tender; (ii) For a direction upon the respondent No. 1, 2, 5 and 6 to show - cause and justify the expenditure of huge amount of public money in anticipation of allotment and to further justify as to how for similar nature of work order like repair of Garage of respondent no.5 and for repair of garage of Sub Divisional Officer, Deoghar the estimated cost was Rs.5,24,500/ - and Rs.1,85,000/ - respectively; (iii) Further directing criminal investigation by a Central Investigating agency or an independent investigating agency and lodging of criminal case against the erring respondent authorities for embezzlement and misuse of public money, in as much as no notice inviting tender was actually published by the Building Construction Department on 4.10.2008 in the daily Hindi newspaper "Dainik Jagran' either in Bhagalpur or in Ranchi Edition, rather the entire work or tender has been carried out criminal conspiracy and connivance, in view of the facts and circumstances stated herein after in the Public Interest Litigation; (iv) For issuance of an appropriate order by this Hon'ble Court, for initiating appropriate criminal proceeding against the erring Respondents, specially the respondent no. 6 for indulging in embezzlement of pubic money under criminal conspiracy; (v) Petitioner also prays before the Hon'ble Court to take up the issue on its own motion since the Petitioner apprehends danger to his life and safety, and prays that his name be deleted from the cause title to maintain secrecy of his identity."
(2.) COUNSEL appearing for the petitioner submitted mainly that the work, in question, has been given to the respondent -Contractor without giving proper publication on the newspapers and the Notice Inviting Tender was published only in one local daily Hindi newspaper, namely, "Dainik Jagaran". This is the major objection and it is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that henceforth State may be directed, not to give such type of work of repairing or otherwise, without following the procedure laid down by the State. We have heard counsel for the State, who has stated that a detailed counter - affidavit has been filed by the State and basically this is not a public interest litigation at all. This petitioner is not a social activist as stated in the memo of petition, but, is the father of one Contractor, who is in search of a contract to be given by the State.
(3.) SO far merit of the matter is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that in every matter, detailed counter -affidavit has been filed and it has been stated that there was a proper publication of Notice Inviting Tender in the local daily and the work was assigned in accordance with law. There is no misappropriation of any amount and the work has also been completed, as stated in the detailed counter -affidavit, which is pertaining to some repair work and minor construction work at various places. The total amount is approximately Rs.22,00,000/ - (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs). The work has been over before approximately twenty -four months in some cases and in some cases still earlier in point of time. Thus, sometimes urgency is also required to be seen, as stated by the counsel for the State and looking to the urgency, the procedure has been correctly followed by the State Government for the work to be done, as stated in the detailed counter -affidavit filed by the State.;


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