- (1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the order dated 13.3.2007 passed in W.P.(C) No.358 of 2007, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that there was no arbitrariness in allotting the work in question to the 6th respondent.
(2.) A Tender Notice was issued by the Executive Engineer, R.E.O. Works Division, Jamtara for construction of road from Bariarpur to Karmatar. Pursuant to the said Notice Inviting Tender, the appellant -M/s Excel Venture Pvt. Ltd. and one Ongkar Construction - 6th respondent participated and both of them qualified in their technical bid. Thereafter, the financial bid was opened and they have quoted the same rates. According to the appellant, the Executive Engineer forwarded the same to the Superintending Engineer making note that 6 th respondent has not attached the documents of last five years regarding Civil Engineering construction performed in last five years. According to the appellant, the Superintending Engineer forwarded the notes of the Executive Engineer to the Chief Engineer making recommendation that the work be allotted to the appellant. The grievance of the appellant is that the Chief Engineer without assigning any reason for differing with the recommendation of the Superintending Engineer approved the work to be allotted to the 6th respondent. The appellant sent a legal notice through his Advocate to the Secretary, Rural Engineering Organization, which was received in his office on 12.1.2007. The appellant, thereafter, filed W.P.(C) No.358 of 2007 seeking for a direction upon the respondents to execute the work agreement with the appellant, who was only found to be eligible for the allotment of work in Grade -I. The writ petition was dismissed on 13.3.2007 holding that the appellant has been awarded big work in terms of the value of the work is concerned and the 6 th respondent was awarded the work in question and hence there was no arbitrariness in allotting the work in question to the 6 th respondent. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant has filed this Letters Patent Appeal.
(3.) WE have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.;