M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Dilip Jerath, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.K. Ojha, learned counsel for respondent No. 7 and the JC to Advocate General.
(2.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 5.4.2004 issued under the signature of Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Project Building, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby the agreement entered with the petitioner for execution of work has been cancelled and it has been ordered that fresh agreement be entered with the petitioner for the construction of road. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass : The concerned department of the respondent issued notice inviting tender being NIT No. 12/2002 -03 for construction of road -bridge from Hardag to Hazam Path. Petitioner alongwith others participated in the said tender. The Department thereafter decided to allot the work in favour of two bidder i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 7 by bifurcating the works in two parts. Consequently, the department entered into an agreement on 29.11.2003 with the petitioner for construction of bridge and drain. Respondent No. 7 challenged the said agreement by fling WPC No. 6334 of 2003 on the ground Inter alia that work was not allotted to him as per the decision of the Tender Committee. According to respondent No. 7 the work of bridge and drain was to be allotted to the petitioner whereas remaining work of road was to be allotted to him. After hearing the parties, this Court disposed of the writ application on 13.2.2004 by passing the following order, which reads as under : "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate General on behalf of the respondent -State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that work has not been allotted as per the decision of the Tender Committee. As per the decision, the work of the bridge and drain was to be allotted to the petitioner whereas the remaining work of road was to be allotted to respondent No. 6. But agreement for bridge and drain has been entered with respondent No. 6. Learned Advocate General very fairly submitted that if that is so, petitioner should make a representation before the concerned authority who will look into the matter and do the needful after hearing the respondent No. 6. In view of the stand adopted by learned Advocate General, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent No. 6 Before disposing -off this case. In the circumstances, petitioner should make a representation before the Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Ranchi (respondent No. 1), within two weeks, who will look into the matter and pass necessary order after hearing the petitioner and respondent No. 6, in accordance with law, as early as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of such representation. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of."
(3.) IT appears that as per the direction of this Court respondent No. 2, Secretary, .Department of Rural Development, Project Building, Govt. of Jharkhand after hearing the parties passed a reasoned order. It was found by the Secretary that some irregularities and error was committed in the matter of execution of agreement and therefore a direction was issued to cancel the agreement of the petitioner and enter into a fresh agreement so that 50% work to be allotted to respondent No. 7.;