Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(c) for issuance of direction upon the respondents to award the work in favour of the petitioner, who is most eligible and suitable both technically and financially as per the Bids tendered by it and accordingly to issue LOA and execute the agreement as per RFP No. UDD/JUA/01/2018-19.

During the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner has filed the present interlocutory application seeking amendment in the prayers made in the writ petition by putting challenge to subsequent notice as contained in memo No. 1512 dated 05.06.2020 (Annexure-10 to the present interlocutory application) issued under the signature of the Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Adityapur by reasons of which it has been informed that NIT No. UDD/JUA/01/2018-19 has been cancelled by the Tender Committee of SUDA. The petitioner has also sought to add further grounds so as to challenge memo No. 1512 dated 05.06.2020.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed the present interlocutory application primarily due to the reason that the Tender Committee of SUDA has cancelled NIT No. UDD/JUA/01/2018-19 as informed vide memo No. 1512 dated 05.06.2020 signed by the Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Adityapur which does not contain any reason. In fact, the respondent No.7 was ineligible in the said tender as it had quoted 31.03% less than of the DPR rate. The petitioner having quoted 6.04% less than the DPR rate and also being technically qualified was entitled to be awarded the work in question. However, vide memo No. 1512 dated 05.06.2020, the information has been communicated that the NIT in question itself has been cancelled by the Tender Committee of SUDA which is highly arbitrary and illegal. It is further submitted that addition of the said prayer and the grounds related therewith will not change the nature of the present writ petition. Hence, the amendment sought by the petitioner may be allowed.

Mr. Ranjan Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.6 and Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand, jointly submit that the issue raised in the present writ petition is primarily with regard to the decision making process undertaken by the Tender Committee of SUDA by which the work in question has been awarded to the respondent No.7. Since the NIT in question itself has been cancelled and the grounds of challenging the same are entirely different from the main question raised in the writ petition, allowing of the present interlocutory application filed on behalf of the petitioner would change the entire nature of the present writ petition.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of the present writ petition as well as the interlocutory application. It appears from the prayers made by the petitioner in the present writ petition that it has challenged the order/notice issued by the Adityapur Municipal Corporation in terms with the decision taken by the Tender Committee of SUDA for awarding the work in question to the respondent No.7. The petitioner has also claimed in the present writ petition that being an eligible tenderer, it should have been awarded the said work. The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the decision taken by the Tender Committee, SUDA as informed by the Adityapur Municipal Corporation regarding cancellation of the said tender. The ground thereof mentioned in the present interlocutory application itself is entirely different from those mentioned in the present writ petition. Thus, I am of the view that allowing of the present interlocutory application would amount to changing the nature of the entire writ petition. Hence, the aforesaid amendment prayed by the petitioner cannot be allowed.