Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18275 of 2012 ====================================================== Om Prakash Singh Son Of Sri Gupteshwar Singh Resident Of Mohalla - New Area Sasaram, Near Gayatri Mandir, P.O. And P.S. Sasaram, District - Rohtas At Sasaram .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through The Principal Secretary, Urban Development And Housing Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 2. The District Magistrate, Rohtas At Sasaram, District - Rohtas At Sasaram 3. Sasaram Nagar Parishad , Sasaram Through The Municipal Executive Officer 4. The Chief Councilor, Sasaram Nagar Parishad , Sasaram , District - Rohtas At Sasaram 5. The Municipal Executive Officer, Sasaram Nagar Parishad, Sasaram, District - Rohtas At Sasaram 6. Amit Kumar S/O Nand Kishore Singh R/O Mohalla- Gandhi Nagar, P.O.+P.S.+Distt.- Sasaram 7. Sunil Kumar S/O Late Jagdeo Prasad R/O Mohalla- Karan Sarai, P.O.+P.S.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas At Sasaram 8. Om Prakash Singh S/O Ghanshyam Singh R/O Mohalla- Nuranganj, Baulid Road, P.O.+P.S.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas At Sasaram 9. Jagdanand Singh S/O Ram Pyare Singh R/O Mohalla- Khilanganj, New Area, P.O.+P.S.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas At Sasaram 10. Sardar Harbhajan Singh S/O Late Surya Narayan Singh R/O Mohalla- Jaani Bazaar, P.O.+P.S.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas At Sasaram 11. Anil Kumar Singh S/O Indrajit Singh R/O Mohalla- Santoshi Maa Path, Gaursheni, P.O.+P.S.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas At Sasaram 12. Rajnikant Sinha S/O Birendra Prasad Sinha R/O Mohalla- Gaurcheni, Gajradh Gali, P.O.+P.S.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas At Sasaram 13. Madan Mohan Tiwari S/O Kripa Shankar Tiwari R/O Mohalla- Gaurcheni, Gajradh, Gali No.3, P.O.+P.S.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas At Sasaram 14. Kamlesh Kumar Rai S/O Sikandar Rai R/O Mohalla- New Area, P.O.+P.S.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas At Sasaram 15. Sanjiv Kumar Singh S/O Baijyanath Singh R/O Mohalla- Kanserwa, Fazalganj, P.O.+P.S.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas At Sasaram 16. Lalan Prasad Singh S/O Ramashankar Singh R/O Mohalla- Torni, Shivsagar, P.O.+P.S.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas At Sasaram 17. Ram Pravesh Singh S/O Bishwanath Singh R/O Mohalla- Nuranganj, P.O.+P.S.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas At Sasaram 18. Ashok Kumar S/O Late Jawahar Sah R/O Mohalla- Takid, P.O.+P.S.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas At Sasaram 19. M/S Sherawali Construction Through Proprietor Sanjit Singh S/O Babban Singh R/O Mohalla- New Area, P.O.+P.S.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas At Sasaram 20. Rashid Akhtar S/O Moinuddin R/O Mohalla- Mogalpura, Sulemanganj, P.O.+P.S.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas At Sasaram 21. Nandu Singh S/O Late Amirchand Singh R/O Mohalla- Karansarai, P.O.+P.S.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas At Sasaram .... .... Respondent/s Patna High Court CWJC No.18275 of 2012 (5) dt.16-07-2013 Page 2 /6 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 5 16-07-2013 Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 27.8.12 passed by the respondent Municipal Executive Officer, Sasaram Nagar Parishad whereby the said respondent refused to recognize the contractors registered with the different Works department of the State for grant of contract. Petitioner claims to be one of the aspirants for grant of contract work under the respondent - Nagar Parishad but was not allowed to participate in the selection process.
Legal Reasoning
Facts of the case in short are that the respondent Nagar Parishad published a notice on 20.8.12 inviting tender for execution of different works of different scheme under Sasaram Nagar Parishad. The notice inviting tender did not restrict the contractors who were registered with the Works Department of the Government. The last date of filing papers/tender was 28.8.12. Petitioner purchased the bill of quantity (BOQ) on 27.8.12. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not allowed to file the same. Resultantly, the contract work, after selection, was given to the private respondent nos. 6 to 21. The petitioner has stated that he is registered with the Road construction Department of the Government as Class IV contractor. Annexure-1 has been annexed in support thereof. The Patna High Court CWJC No.18275 of 2012 (5) dt.16-07-2013 Page 3 /6 Government in the department of Urban Development and Housing by a communication dated 25.2.09 (Annexure-3) had directed all the Municipal Commissioner(s) and Executive Officer(s) of the Corporation / Nagar Parishad that the contractor who is registered with the works department of the Government should also be allowed to bid which would further healthy competition. The petitioner has submitted that the impugned action of the respondent Nagar Parishad is contrary to the said instruction/Circular of the Government issued in the concerned Department. The respondent Nagar Parishad has, therefore, acted in gross breach of the said instruction and prevented the petitioner from participating in the tender process in an arbitrary manner.
Legal Reasoning
I have heard Mr. S.B.K. Manglam for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Chief Councillor (respondent no.4) and Mr. R.C. Sinha for the Sasaram Nagar Parishad. Parties have exchanged pleadings. Mr. Manglam, learned counsel submits that the respondents have wrongly prevented the petitioner from filing the tender/bid document on the ground that the petitioner was not registered as a contractor with the Nagar Parishad. Referring to the instruction of the Government issued in the Urban Development and Housing Department (Annexure-3) it has been submitted that in spite Patna High Court CWJC No.18275 of 2012 (5) dt.16-07-2013 Page 4 /6 of the said clarification the respondent Nagar Parishad arbitrarily prevented the petitioner from participating in the bid. The order dated 27.8.12 (Annexure-10) issued by the Nagar parishad has been challenged on the said ground. The said order has placed unreasonable restriction on the petitioner and several other willing contractors. Learned counsel for the respondent no.5, on the other hand, supported the impugned action. It has been submitted that in taking the aforesaid decision contained in Annexure-10 the respondents have not violated the guidelines/ direction issued by the Urban Development and Housing Department as contained in letter no. 2288 dated 28.4.11 (Annexure-6). It has been submitted that from his own showing the petitioner was registered as Class IV contractor with the Dehri Division of the Road Construction Department. The State Government in the Department of Road Construction framed and notified a Rule called Bihar Thikedari Nibandhan Niyamawali 2007 wherein three categories of contractors of road and bridges have been recognized. The said Rule was forwarded to the all the Departments of the Government including the Urban Development and Housing Department to ensure that the tenders are finalized and works are allotted as per the said ‘Niyamawali’. Copy of the said Rule/Niyamawali has been enclosed Patna High Court CWJC No.18275 of 2012 (5) dt.16-07-2013 Page 5 /6 as Annexure-2. The petitioner has claimed to be a contractor of Class IV category registered with the Road Construction Department. The Rule does not recognize Class IV category. A bare perusal of the Rule indicates that only Class I, Class-II and Class III categories are recognized for which different registration fee is/are prescribed. The Rule was forwarded to the entire department including the Urban Development Department of the Government for its compliance. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be said to be a registered contractor with the Government. It has also been submitted that similar issue was raised in another writ petition vide CWJC No. 6722 of 2011 which was dismissed on 12.12.11. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the materials on record. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was arbitrarily prevented from participating in the tender process although he had purchased the BOQ. The petitioner is registered as Class IV contractor with the Dehri Division of the Road Construction Department. There is no controversy that registration of contractors is now regulated by a Rule framed by the Government in the said Department called Bihar Thikedari Nibandhan Niyamawali 2007. The said Rule recognizes only three categories of contractors namely Class- I, II and III. It further appears that the notification issued by the Road Construction Department Patna High Court CWJC No.18275 of 2012 (5) dt.16-07-2013 Page 6 /6 constituting the said Rule was forwarded to all the Works Department of the Government including the Urban Development Department, obviously for due compliance and adherence to the said Rule by those departments. The respondents, in view of the aforesaid, did not permit the petitioner to participate in the tender bid since in the eye of law the petitioner has no registration either with the Road Construction Department and/or the Nagar Parishad. If that be so, then no fault can be found with the aforesaid decision until a clarification and/or further instruction is issued by the Government in the appropriate / concerned department. The respondents have also submitted that similar issue was raised in another writ petition which has been dismissed by this Court. For the reasons noted above, this Court does not find any illegality and/or arbitrariness in the impugned action of the respondent Nagar Parishad meriting interference with the impugned order. The application deserves to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Decision
No order as to costs. (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Shyam/-