GAUTAM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A preliminary work order dated 29.11.2001 issued in favour of the respondent No. 4 pursuant to a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) is the subject -matter of the challenge in the Instant writ petition.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy that has arisen in the instant case may be conveniently set out hereunder :

(3.) An Affidavit -in -opposition has been filed in the present case by Respondent No. 2 as well as Respondent No. 4. Insofar as the affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 2 is concerned, it has been averred in the said affidavit that in terms of Clause 11 of the Additional Terms and Conditions a non -tribal contractor firm or joint venture selected for the execution of the work was required to produce Trading License/Exemption Certificate from the Competent Authority on allotment of the preliminary work order. Under the aforesaid Clause 11 only upon production of such trading license/exemption certificate the final order for commencement of the work was to be issued after signing of the formal tender agreement in the prescribed form. According to the respondent -authority under the provisions of United Khasi Jaintia Hills District (Trading by Non -tribals) Regulation, 1954 it was mandatory for a non -tribal to obtain a trading licence from the Licensing Authority of Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council for carrying on any form of business within the East Khasi Hills District of Meghalaya. In the affidavit it has been further averred that the writ petitioner has earlier been allotted a preliminary work order on 12.6.2001 in respect of work relating to "improvement of riding quality from KM 0.00 to KM 10.275 of NH 40". However, because of the failure on the part of the petitioner to obtain and furnish necessary trading licence the final work order could not be issued and the aforesaid work allotted to the petitioner is yet to commence thereby adversely affecting the public interest. According to the Respondent No. 2 the Tender Committee in its meeting held on 15.11.2001 deliberated over the issue and decided that as the trading licence in respect of the earlier work allotted to the petitioner was not yet furnished as a result of which the said work was yet to commence, insofar as the present works are concerned, the same be allotted to the Respondent No. 4, who was the third lowest bidder. The second lowest bidder one M/s. Jaichandlal Singhi was also not considered for allotment of the work order on similar grounds. It is also averred in the affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 2 that for the aforesaid reasons the Tender Committee took the decision to grant the work in question to the Respondent No. 4 who accepted the same at the lowest offer and there was no negotiation in the matter of acceptance of such lowest offer by Respondent No. 4 as alleged in the writ petition.