M/s. Ganesh Ram Dokania v. The State of Bihar

Patna High Court CWJC No.22552 of 2012 (4) dt.06-02-2013 2 Shorn of unnecessary details the petitioner who is a registered contractor with Road Construction Department under Category-1 as well as with IRCON International Limited in Category-IA had applied against Notices Inviting Tender with respect to 11 works. The petitioner had while submitting his tender papers mentioned existing commitment as Rs.91 crores for which he had filed an affidavit also subsequently as required by respondents on 11.6.2012. It is the stand of the petitioner that it also undertakes such type of work in the State of Jharkhand and on account of the mistake of the office staff the existing commitment with respect to the works in the State of Jharkhand was not included in the figure of existing commitment which should have been Rs.186.15 crores. The petitioner on the very next day informed the department that the existing commitment was wrongly mentioned as 91 crores in the affidavit and it is in fact Rs.

186.15 crores. The said letter was thereafter followed up by an affidavit dated 13.6.2012 in which reference is made to the letter dated 12.6.2012 and the correct information given, which affidavit was also enclosed with another letter dated 14.6.2012 submitted before the department. The department, however, by independent enquiry from the authorities of Government of Jharkhand found that the petitioner’s existing commitment mentioned in the tender papers as also in the affidavit dated 11.6.2012 was incorrect and proceedings for blacklisting were initiated and by the impugned Patna High Court CWJC No.22552 of 2012 (4) dt.06-02-2013 3 order dated 26.10.2012 passed by the Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department the petitioner was blacklisted without mentioning any specific period for which the blacklisting was to operate. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal in terms of 2007 Rules before the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar and by order dated 29.11.2012 the appellate authority modified the order of the Engineer-in-Chief and directed the registration of the petitioner to be suspended for six months. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had never any intention to mislead the respondents in the matter and the moment the petitioner learnt about the mistake having been committed he immediately on the very next day of the filing of the earlier affidavit and the detection of the mistake informed the authorities about the correct state of existing commitment by a letter which fact is also admitted in the appellate order dated 29.11.2012 which was thereafter followed up by fresh affidavit sent to the department. It is thus submitted that such act of the petitioner clearly indicates that he never had any deliberate intention to play fraud upon the department and mislead the respondents for the purpose of grant of tender. It is also submitted by learned counsel that as a matter of fact no benefit accrued to the petitioner by showing the existing commitment at Rs.91 crores instead of Rs.186.15 crores as the Patna High Court CWJC No.22552 of 2012 (4) dt.06-02-2013 4 same would not have disqualified the petitioner from getting the contract and thus unlawful intention and malice could not be attributed to the petitioner in that regard. It is submitted that the said fact has also been admitted in the appellate order that the difference in the existing commitment mentioned in the tender papers and the earlier affidavit would not have made any difference to the petitioner in qualifying for the tender. Learned counsel thus submits that in view of the clear finding of the appellate authority there was no occasion to suspend the registration of the petitioner for six months much less to even hold that the petitioner had intentionally sought to mislead the department. At the worst the respondents should have taken a fair and just view of the matter and absolved the petitioner and not blacklisted him or suspended his registration which amounts to the same thing. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that it is evident that the petitioner had made a false statement in his tender papers which were filed in the month of May itself and the same was repeated in the affidavit and thereafter sought to be rectified, probably after learning that the respondents had sought details from the Jharkhand authorities also. It is stated by him that there is no illegality in the impugned orders and the same should not be interfered with by this Court. On a consideration of the rival submissions of the parties Patna High Court CWJC No.22552 of 2012 (4) dt.06-02-2013 5 this Court is of the view that when the appellate order accepts the fact that the petitioner has rectified the error in his affidavit the very next day and further admits the fact that no benefit could have been derived by the petitioner by showing the lower existing commitment and he could qualify even on his higher existing commitment, the just and fair view should have been to absolve in the blacklisting proceedings and not directing suspension of his registration; the petitioner, at best, should have been warned to be more careful in future. On the admitted facts of the case no such punishment of suspension of registration for six months, which is tantamount to blacklisting, ought to have been passed against the petitioner. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned orders dated 29.11.2012 and 26.10.2012 are quashed. In the facts and circumstances, however, there shall be no order as to costs. (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J) spal/-