S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant, Doman Mandal, against the judgment dated 7th October, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 6208 of 2003, whereby and where under, the decision of a departmental committee dated 1st December, 2003 recommending allotment of tender in favour of appellant/5th respondent and the order of allotment of tender work dated 4th December, 2003, issued by the Chief Engineer, Rural Development (Special Range), Jharkhand, Ranchi, were cancelled and the writ petition was allowed in favour of writ petitioner 6th respondent herein, namely, Shailesh Kumar Ganesh.
(2.) THE present case relates to allotment of work in pursuance of a Notice Inviting Tender No. 01/2002 -03 (N.I.T. for short) for awarding contract of 46 (forty six) different kinds of construction works, which were to be made in the district of Jamtara. Initially, Tender was called for from Registered Contractors, but later on, by Corrigendum, Clause (9) of the N.I.T. was diluted and the Non -registered Contractors having sufficient experience, were allowed to participate in the tender, obtaining permission from the competent authority. In the N.I.T., different stringent clauses were laid down. As per Clause (12) of the N.I.T., tenderers were required to submit Labour Licence; Character Certificates; Up -to -date Income tax and Sales Tax Clearance Certificates etc. The work at Item No. 41 of the N.I.T. relates to construction of a Bridge at Joria situated between Barsani to Barhai Road in the district of Jamtara. The present appeal relates work at Item No. 41 of the N.I.T. i.e. construction of a Bridge at Joria. Both the appellant Doman Mandal and the 6th respondent Shailesh Kumar Ganesh being not registered, obtained permission to take part in the tender. The appellant Doman Mandal obtained permission from the Deputy Secretary of the Department, whereas the 6th respondent Shailesh Kumar Ganesh, was given permission by the Engineer -in -Chief of the Department. The other Contractors, namely, Shri Durga Prasad and Shri Naresh Mohan Singh also submitted their tender papers. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Development Special Circle, Dumka, vide his letter No. 186 dated 12th April, 2003 forwarded the details of four Contractors. A chart showing details was prepared and forwarded, relevant portion of which reads, as follows : Remarks Doman Mandal, Shailesh KumarJamtara. Ganesh, Deoghar.Permission to take Deputy Secretary Engineer -in -chief of thepart in the tender, of the Department. Department.granted by.Income Tax Yes, Valid upto 5th Yes. Valid upto 4thClearance. January, 2004. August, 2003.Sales Tax Not Applied for Yes. Valid upto 6th April,Clearance. 2003 being Regn. No.DG: 1278 (R).Labour Licence. Yes, Valid upto 8th Yes. Valid upto 17thJanuary, 2004. July, 2003.Character Granted from Granted from DeogharCertificate. Jamtara District. District.Experience. No Experience Dealing Agency andCertificate. Certificate of workenclosed.
(3.) INITIALLY , the work order was issued in favour of the 6th respondent -Shailesh Kumar Ganesh on 2nd May, 2003, but before execution of agreement, the order of allotment was cancelled by the Chief Engineer and it was allotted in favour of the appellant -Doman Mandal, at the behest of one Central Minister, namely, Mr. Sibu Soren, M.P. The 6th respondent, thereafter moved before this Court in W.P. (C) No. 2710 of 2003, in which the Engineer -in -Chief, R.E.O. appeared and informed that no formal order of cancellation of contract in favour of 6th respondent had been issued. He also accepted that the note given by him on 11th June, 2003 in favour of appellant was not, in accordance with law, and assured that it will not be acted upon and he will withdraw the same. Having noticed the aforesaid statement made by the Engineer -in -Chief, R.E.O., Jharkhand, the writ petition was disposed of on 20th June, 2003 allowing the competent authority to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Thereafter, a fresh work order was issued in favour of the 6th respondent -Shailesh Kumar Ganesh on 25th August, 2003 and an agreement was executed on 22nd September, 2003. The appellant -Doman Mandal, thereafter approached this Court in W.P. (C) No. 5313 of 2003. In the said case, he suppressed the fact that the Work Order had been issued in favour of the 6th respondent -Shailesh Kumar Ganesh and agreement had also been executed. The writ petition, W.P. (C) No. 5313 of 2003 preferred by the appellant was disposed of on 11th November, 2003 without notice and hearing the 6th respondent and the matter was remitted to the authority to hear the party and pass appropriate order. Thereafter, the respondents issued the impugned order on 12th December, 2003 recommending the allotment of work in favour of the appellant -Doman Mandal and allotted the work in his favour by order dated 4th December, 2003. Learned Single Judge by impugned judgment dated 7th October, 2003 having noticed that the Work Order has already been issued in favour of the 6th respondent - Shailesh Kumar Ganesh, who was the writ petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 6208 of 2003 and that the agreement had already been executed and further that part of the work had also been completed by the 6th respondent -Shailesh Kumar Ganesh and that in the earlier writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No. 5313 of 2003, the appellant -Doman Mandal had suppressed the aforesaid fact, held the orders dated 1st December, 2003 and 4th December, 2003, as illegal, aforesaid facts having not taken into consideration by the Committee and/competent authority, who recommended and allotted the work subsequently in favour of appellant -Doman Mandal, the writ petition was allowed in favour of the 6th respondent -Shailesh Kumar Ganesh. 4 -A. From the facts aforesaid, it will be evident that both the appellant -Doman Mandal and the 6th respondent -Shailesh Kumar Ganesh were the lowest tenderers. Both of them had applied. The Work order was initially issued in favour of the 6th respondent -Shailesh Kumar Ganesh and agreement was also reached and the 6th respondent has already completed much of the work. Further from the comparative Chart, I find that the 6th respondent -Shailesh Kumar Ganesh had past experience over the line and had already submitted his certificate in that regard, has also produced Sales Tax Clearance Certificate. On the other hand, the appellant -Doman Mandal had not submitted any Certificate of experience, nor produced Sales Tax Clearance Certificate. Besides that he had not done any part of the job, during the pendency of the cases, as referred above.;