Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - (1.) This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the direction has been sought for upon the respondent to cancel the work order issued in favour of the respondent no.5 in pursuance to notice inviting tender dated 05.07.2017 vide Reference no.UDD/NP/HZB/05/2017-18.
(2.) The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition is that the petitioner s company is registered under Urban Development Department. The department has come out with notice inviting tender on 05.07.2017 for execution of different works inclusive of work pertaining to construction of culvert and drainage in Ward No.31, Anandpuri district Hazaribag. Different bidders have participated in the bid including the petitioner but the work order has not been issued in favour of the petitioner rather respondent no.5 has been found to be successful.
(3.) The petitioner being aggrieved with the said action of the respondent authority has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition, inter alia on the grounds: (i) The notice inviting tender contains condition as contained under Condition nos. 5 and 8 to the effect that at the time of submission of the application for participation in terms of the NIT, one or the other bidder will have to furnish the certificate pertaining to completion of similar nature of work for three financial years, so that in case of equal rate the bidder who have completed more number of works will have to be given preference, apart from that condition, the preference has also been decided to be given to the bidders who have been registered under the department of Urban Development Department or Municipal Corporation, Hazaribag. The Condition no.8 provides a condition that no preference would be given to such bidders who have not completed the works complete. According to the petitioner, he has been registered under the Urban Development Department and as such the preference in allotment of the work ought to have been given to the petitioner, having not done so, the decision making process by the tender committee is questionable being not proper, hence not sustainable. (ii) The petitioner ought to have been given preference but ignoring the said condition stipulated in notice inviting tender, the work order has been issued in favour of the respondent no.5. (iii) The allegation of mala fide has been alleged against respondent no.4, that is the reason respondent no.4 has been impleaded as party by name apart from his impleadment through his designation, the port which he was holding at that time, the Executive Officer, Hazaribag Municipality but as it gathered from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.3, Executive Officer, Hazaribag Municipality namely Ashish Kumar, respondent no.4 has sworn the affidavit and therefore, serious irregularities has been committed by the concerned respondent. (iv) According to the petitioner, the contractors who have not completed the work, no preference would be given who is the bidder herein, the petitioner has made out a case.;