Gopal Prasad Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 17 October, 2016

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Jharkhand High Court

Gopal Prasad Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 17 October, 2016

2. Petitioner sought sanction of work for construction of Aanganbari Center under Sarwan Project as a contractor registered in Category-IV for District Board, Deoghar. He also sought quashing of the tender notice no. 7/2015-16 alleging amalgamation of constructions of Aaanganbari Centers of 3 different panchayats on the proposed estimate of Rs. 21,41,580/- as it would exclude claim of Small Time Contractor like the petitioner. Petitioner registered as Grade-IV contractor could undertake work ranging up to Rs.10 lakhs while Grade-III contractors are entitled to execute the work ranging from Rs.10 Lakhs to 50 Lakhs. According to the petitioner under the impugned tender constructions of 3 Aanganbari Centers under Sarwan Block at 3 villages namely Rautdih, Jagmandih and Nawadih respectively under different Blocks were amalgamated to escalate the estimated amount beyond Rs. 20 Lakhs. The Tender, Annexure-2, invited interested bidders to submit their bid till 19.9.2015. Petitioner approached this Court accordingly in December, 2015 alleging that the tender has not been opened and the matter is pending.

3. Respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that as per the directions of the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, work of 54 Aanganbari Centers were to be completed through Zila Parishad, Deoghar till December, 2015 as per the list approved by the Social Welfare,Women and Child Development Department, Government of Jharkhand through its letter no. 146 dated 15.12.2014 for the financial year 2014-15. In the light of the recommendation of 13th Finance Commission, therefore -2- tender was issued in package or block wise accordingly by the Zila Parishad, Deoghar. In the previous year also tenders were invited in package in other Works Division.

4. Learned counsel for the Respondent State submits that tender nos. 4, 5 and 6 of 2015-16 related to contractors of Grade-IV category. Petitioner therefore cannot allege that any rule has been violated. According to him, tenders have been acted upon and work is under progress. Therefore being no illegality in the tender process and no denial of opportunity to such Grade-IV Contractors due to availability to participate in tenders such as tender nos. 4, 5 and 6 of 2015-16, petitioner cannot allege any infirmity in the impugned tender. Petitioner also cannot claim of sanction of construction work of Aanganbari Center under Sarwan Project on that basis.

5. Having considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter, on both counts petitioner has not been able to make out a case for any relief. In the first place, out of total 7 tenders floated, 3 tenders were intended for Grade-IV contractors in which petitioner could have easily participated. In the other tender with which the petitioner has a grievance i.e. 7/15- 16, the same has been done in the manner of a package as was previously done also. The estimated value of floated work in the instant tender being above 10 Lakhs, petitioner could not have made a valid claim for participation in the same. Tender has also been acted upon and the work is also in progress. The person who has been allotted the said work is not impleaded as party in the present writ petition.

6. In the totality of aforesaid facts and circumstances, therefore no relief can be granted in the present matter to the petitioner. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty/ Kamlesh

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court