Ananda Sen, J. - (1.) The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to show cause as to why his bid submitted pursuant to the urgent notice inviting Tender No. 2/2016-17 has not been considered. He further prays for setting aside the work which was awarded to respondent no. 5 pursuant to the aforesaid tender notice.
(2.) The petitioner claims that pursuant to the Tender Notice No. 2/2016-17 issued by the respondent no.4, the petitioner placed his bid but surprisingly his bid was not considered and the work has been awarded to the respondent no.5. He submits that the Unique Contractor Account Number (UCAN) of the petitioner was valid thus the bid could not have been cancelled. He submits that the Unique Contractor Account Number was also not required to be produced by the petitioner as per the tender document. He submits that with malafide intention the respondents have arbitrarily rejected the tender of the petitioner. He submits that on this score alone the writ application filed by the petitioner needs to be allowed and the work order by which work is allotted to the respondent no. 5 needs to be quashed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner's UCAN certificate was not valid. Further submits that the petitioner was suggested to furnish his income tax return for the period 2016-17 which the petitioner has failed to do so, thus his case was not considered. He submits that the work was for a limited period. A boundary wall was to be constructed. He submits that the work was in three parts, for increasing the height of the boundary wall of Kasturba Gandhi Girls Residential School, Kundahit as well as for construction of PCC Road from Kundahit to the gate of the aforesaid schools and for construction of Panchayat Bhawan, Dighari, Block Narayanpur, District Jamtara. He submits that the tender was finalized in favour of the respondent no. 5 and the work was allotted to him and he has already completed all the three works which was allotted to him. Learned counsel for the State lastly submits that since the work has already been completed by the respondent no. 5, this writ application has become infructuous. ;