R.R.Prasad,J. - (1.) A notice inviting tender was issued on 31.1.2013 whereby and whereunder applications were invited for construction of a check dam over Hinoo Nala. The petitioner, engaged in construction work registered under the Water Resources Department since 25.10.2002, submitted its bid documents along with necessary certificates. Bid was opened on 28.2.2013 for scrutinising technical as well as price bid of all the bidders. During which, it was found that rate quoted by all the bidders is the same. In that event, according to the petitioner, work order, as per the policy decision, should have been awarded to the petitioner who had had more experience in the field than others. But even after passing off two months, when the work order was not issued in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner filed this application praying therein to direct the respondent to issue work order in favour of the petitioner. However, while the matter was pending, work order was awarded to M/s. Foyal Fort Engicon Private Limited, vide order dated 30.4.2013 as contained in Memo No.894. In that event, that order was challenged by way of Interlocutory application, bearing no.3677 of 2013. At the same time, the person to whom the work order was issued was also allowed to be impleaded as respondent no.6. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the petitioner has been denied work order on the pretext that the petitioner had failed to complete the work allotted to him earlier.
(2.) Being aggrieved with the action of the respondents of not awarding work to the petitioner, rather awarding the work to the respondent no.6, who was not eligible in terms of NIT to be awarded with work and thereby according to the petitioner it was arbitrariness.
(3.) Mr.S.N.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent no.6 was not even eligible to be awarded with work as in terms of one of the conditions of the NIT, he was supposed to submit the bid paper along with labour license but he did not do so. In spite of that, he was awarded work and was asked to submit labour license which he did submit later on and thereby act of respondents is not only discriminatory but also arbitrary and on this ground alone, the order under which work has been awarded to the respondent no.6 is fit to be quashed.;