Prashant Kumar, J. - (1.) This writ application has been filed for quashing the order as contained in letter No. 990 dated 4.6.2013, whereby respondents forfeited the earnest money deposited by the petitioner in the form of bank guarantee in relation to Tender No. RWD/DUMKA/02/2012 -13 for construction of road from Durgapur to Kolha. It appears that during pendency of this writ application, respondents blacklisted the petitioner vide letter No. 79 dated 26.6.2014, thus, an application filed by the petitioner, being I.A. No. 3339 of 2014, challenging the aforesaid order and also for amendment of the writ application.
(2.) As noticed above, since the petitioner was blacklisted during the pendency of this writ application, therefore, I.A. No. 3339 of 2014 allowed and the writ application is amended accordingly. It is ordered that the aforesaid I.A. petition become the part of this writ application.
(3.) It is stated that respondent -Rural Works Department, State of Jharkhand issued e -Tender vide Reference No. 53/2012 -13/RWD/Dumka dated 13.10.2012 for construction of road from Durgapur to Kolha. In pursuance of the said tender notice, petitioner submitted its bid. The aforesaid bid was accepted. It is stated that respondent No. 4 (Executive Engineer. Rural Works Department, Dumka Division, Dumka) vide letter No. 673 dated 5.4.2013 requested the petitioner to execute agreement within seven days. After receipt of the aforesaid letter, petitioner came to know that some of the villages, falling in between Durgapur to Kolha come within the forest area. Accordingly, petitioner wrote a letter on 9.5.2013 to the respondent No. 4 stating therein that prior to submission of tender, on query he was informed by the office of the respondent No. 4 that there is no forest and/or raiyati land in between Durgapur and Kolha as it appears from letter No. 1484/Dumka dated 14.9.2011. It is further stated that keeping the aforesaid fact in view, the petitioner participated in the bid. But later on, he surprised to know that part of the lands in between Durgapur to Kolha falls in protected forest area. Thus, petitioner requested the respondent No. 4 for obtaining clearance from the Forest Department immediately, otherwise it is not possible for the petitioner to execute the work. It is stated that instead of obtaining clearance from the Forest Department the respondent No. 4 vide letter No. 896 dated 18.5.2013. informed the petitioner that there is no forest land in between Durgapur to Kolha thus, petitioner executed the agreement. It is also mentioned in the said letter that if the agreement will not be executed than the work will be allotted to second tenderer and the petitioner will be blacklisted. It is stated that thereafter, vide letter No. 990 dated 4.6.2013, respondent No. 4 forfeited the earnest money of the petitioner and recommended for blacklisting the petitioner.;