Petitioner, a registered contractor, challenged the cancellation of work orders alleged to have been issued illegally. The court held that work orders were void ab initio as the petitioner was not a qualified bidder due to insufficient earnest money deposit and the cancellation cannot be termed illegal. Petitioner dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010127582017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 2420/2017
1:DIBAKAR SARMA
S/O LT. ADYA NATH SARMA VILL- MUGURIA P.O. MUGURIA P.S. PATHSALA DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM and 4 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PWD R DEPARTMENT, ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD ROADS ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI -3.
3:ADDL. CHIEF ENGINEER PWD ROADS CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3
4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD ROADS BARPETA STATE ROAD DIVISION BARPETA
5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PWD ROADS NALBARI RURAL ROADS DIVISION NALBARI
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.M M DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/3
:: BEFORE ::
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA
-O R D E R-
02.04.2018
Heard Mr. UC Rabha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. M Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents.
The petitioner is a registered contractor under PWD (Roads), Government of Assam. As against the Notice Inviting Tender No. CEM/14/Pt/2013/26 dated 03.02.2016 issued by the office of the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads), Assam for lifting of scrap materials under PWD (Roads), Barpeta State Road Division and under PWD (Roads), Nalbari Rural Road Division. It is the contention of the petitioner that the competent authority accepted the bid of the petitioner and work orders were issued to the petitioner. In compliance thereof, the petitioner deposited the requisite bid value amounting Rs. 4,17,912/- for works under PWD (Roads), Barpeta State Road Division and an amount of Rs. 11,34,672/- for the works under the Nalbari Rural Road Division on 04.04.2017. When the petitioner went to the offices of the respondents No. 4 and 5 for the purpose of making payment of VAT, the said respondents No. 4 and 5 declined to issue the requisite challan for deposit of the VAT on the ground that the work orders issued to the petitioner were stayed by the Chief Engineer. Later on, he received the letters of cancellation of the work orders from the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads) dated 08.03.2017. It is submitted that the petitioner were issued work orders and without giving any opportunity of being heard, cancelled the work orders so issued to him which is illegal. The Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads), the respondent No. 2 by way of the additional affidavit-in-opposition put on record that in the said NIT there were 11 participants for auction of old and serviceable materials under the aforesaid two divisions. Out of the said 11 participants, 4 participants were qualified as the successful bidders. The petitioner was disqualified due to deposit of less earnest money. The highest bidder expressed its inability to lift the materials whereafter the petitioner was issued the work order/ allotment order inadvertently by the then Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads) who retired on 28.02.2017.
Page No.# 3/3
Having come to the notice of such inadvertent order in favour of the petitioner, the present Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads) cancelled the whole tender process and subsequently fresh tender process was initiated. The petitioner filed his additional affidavit and admitted deposit of less earnest money.
Considering the materials on record and the submissions of the learned counsels, I am of the view that the work orders purportedly allotted to the petitioner are void ab initio and as he was not a qualified bidder in the NIT process and the subsequent act of the respondent No. 2 in cancelling the work orders cannot be termed to be illegal and/ or arbitrary. Considering the same, this writ petition is dismissed and the same is disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the cancellation of work orders issued inadvertently to the petitioner was illegal or arbitrary.
Whether the petitioner was a qualified bidder in the tender process given his insufficient earnest money deposit.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief dismissing the writ petition in public works contract dispute.
DIBAKAR SARMA
THE STATE OF ASSAM
THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD ROADS ASSAM
THE ADDL. CHIEF ENGINEER PWD ROADS
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD ROADS BARPETA
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD ROADS NALBARI
PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
