Jharkhand High Court
Ganesh Prasad Tiwary, Rajeshwar Prasad ... vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 18 September, 2003
Equivalent citations: I(2004)BC622, [2003(4)JCR392(JHR)]
Author: S.J. Mukhopadhaya
Bench: S.J. Mukhopadhaya
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
1. In these oases, as common question involved, they were heard together and are being disposed of at this stage, as agreed by the parties, by a common order.
2. A Short Notice Inviting Tender No. 2/02-03 was published calling for applications to submit tender papers with regard to different works.
3. Petitioners and some others submitted tender papers for one or other works in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation (REO for short), Works Division, Sahebganj.
4. The documents relating to the tender after assessment were forwarded to the Office of the Chief Engineer, REO, Ranchi. But subsequently, instead of allotting any work, a fresh Short Notice Inviting Tender No. 1/03-04 was issued and published in newspaper on 8th July, 2003 with respect to the same work.
5. The petitioners who claimed to have quoted the same rate for the work, in question, and claimed to be the lowest tenderer, have challenged the fresh Short Notice Inviting Tender No. 1/03-04.
6. The 5th respondent Executive Engineer, REO, Works Division, Sahebganj took plea that the tender papers were misplaced while it was sent to the Headquarter at Ranchi.
7. Taking into consideration that the matter is very serious if the tender papers have been misplaced, the Secretary, Rural Development Department. Jharkhand and the Chief Engineer, REO Ranchi were directed to appear to explain why the documents be not re-constructed if lost on the basis of the records available in the Office of the Executive Engineer, REO, Works Division, Sahebganj and others places.
8. In pursuance of Court's order. Mr. U.P. Singh, the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Jharkhand and Mr. Philip M. Toppo. Chief Engineer, REO, Ranchi appeared.
9. It was informed that the relevant file relating to tender has been misplaced while it was in the custody of one Executive Engineer and the matter is under investigation.
10. While the Court adjourned the cases for another fifteen days, allowed the State to take disciplinary action against one or other employee/officer in whose custody the document was there.
11. One Ram Kumar Singh was the Executive Engineer, REO, Works Division, Sahebganj, in whose custody, the documents relating to tender were lying at that point of time. The said Ram Kumar Singh is at present stated to be posted under the Road Construction Department of the State. He being the custodian at that point of time, the State Government has recently suspended him in view of the observations of the Court, which is the basic reason for his intervention in the present cases.
12. The counsel for Ram Kumar Singh tried to explain the matter that the file might have been misplaced from his table in absence of any Steel Almirah or other Almirah.
13. But this Court is not inclined to give any finding on the question of responsibility of the Officer. It is for the State Government to determine. The State Government has already been given liberty to revoke the order of suspension in case the documents are traced out.
14. Learned Advocate General submitted that the file can be reconstructed on the basis of the relevant documents available in the Office of the Executive Engineer, REO, Works Division. Sahebganj and other places. On the basis of such reconstructed file, the works can be allotted without resorting to any fresh Short Notice Inviting Tender.
15. In view of the stand taken by the learned Advocate General on behalf of the State, while this Court set aside the Short Notice Inviting Tender No. 1/03-04 give the following liberty to the respondents.
(i) To reconstruct the file which was opened pursuant to Short Notice Inviting Tender No. 2/02-03 and to decide the question of allotment of works to the lowest eligible bidder in accordance with law/guidelines issued by the State; and
(ii) The State Government may revoke the order of suspension of the Executive Engineer Ram Kumar Singh, if they are in a position to reconstruct the file and if there is no specific allegation against the said Executive Engineer.
16. All the three writ petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.