M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Rajiv Ranjan learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned counsel for the State.
(2.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the tender published by the respondents for construction of Sub -Divisional Office and other allied buildings for Hussainabad Sub -Division in the district of Palamau on the ground that the petitioner was awarded same contract pursuant to a tender notice published earlier. Petitioner 'scase is that on 31.12.1999 a tender notice was published by the respondents for construction of Sub -Divisional Office and other allied buildings for a total contract value of Rs. 46,418,000.00 . Petitioner submitted his tender for the said work and after negotiation the work was allotted to the petitioner and agreement was executed on 21.6.2000. It is alleged that after the agreement was executed the site for construction of building was not made available and construction work could not be started however, the soil testing was carried out and the project map for the site was sanctioned. There had been series of correspondence between the petitioner and the department for completing the formalities so that the work could be started. Petitioner thereafter surprised to know that another tender was published for the same i.e. Construction of Sub -Divisional Office and other allied buildings alongwith plumbing, electrification and sanitation for an estimated value of Rs. 1.63,72,856/ - which was subsequently modified to Rs. 1,67,72.856/ -. Petitioner 'scase is that the aforesaid tender is illegal and arbitrary in as much as for the same work an agreement was executed with the petitioner and the said agreement was never cancelled.
(3.) RESPONDENT 'scase on the other hand is that new scheme was sanctioned by the Jharkhand Government in different places. The earlier scheme was sanctioned by the Government of Bihar whereas the present scheme was sanctioned by the Deptt. of Building Construction, Government of Jharkhand on 13.3.2003. The tender is not only for the construction of building but also for plumbing, electrification and sanitation and the estimated value has been increased. The respondents had decided to cancel the earlier agreement and return the earnest money deposited by the petitioner.;