Disposed

M/s Sawan Raj Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC14 Nov 2013CWJC/22769/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed by a construction company wrongly debarred from future tenders despite earning recommendations for release when over 80% of work was completed, the Court directed the Department to consider subordinate recommendations immediately before deciding on the petitioner's technical bid to prevent violation of fundamental rights.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Secretary of the Department to consider recommendations for release from debarment before taking a decision on the petitioner's technical bid.

M/s Sawan Raj Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State Of… — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22769 of 2013

¶2

====================================================== M/S Sawan Raj Construction Pvt. Ltd., a Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Karma Road, P.O., P.S., Town and District Aurangabad through its Managing Director Ravi Kumar Singh, son of late Ram Naresh Prasad Singh, Resident of Karma Road, P.O., P.S., Town and District Aurangabad. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Rural Works Department, Visheshwariya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Rural Works Department, Visheshwariya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Engineer in Chief, Rural Works Department, Visheshwariya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer-1, Rural Works Department, Visheshwariya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

¶3

The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Circle, Sasaram. 6. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Bhabua. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, Adv. Mr.Akash Chaturvedi, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, SC-VII. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶4

2 14-11-2013 Annexure-3 is the letter dated 4.10.2013 of the Engineerin-Chief addressed to all the Chief Engineers, Superintending Engineers, Executive Engineers and Project Managers. This letter is accompanied with list of Contractors who have been declared defaulter and have been debarred from participating in future tenders. Petitioner is also in the list at serial no.118.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was wrongly debarred in reference to the two work

¶6

Patna High Court CWJC No.22769 of 2013 (2) dt.14-11-2013

¶7

¶8

mentioned in the list as it had completed more than 80% of the work on both the sites. Therefore, after coming to know about this debarment order, petitioner took steps for getting itself released from the debarment. Accordingly on its approach the Assistant Engineer wrote a letter to the Executive Engineer, vide Annexure4 dated 17.10.2013 informing him that the petitioner had completed 90% of the work at one site and 85% work at the other. In the light of this report the Executive Engineer, vide his letter dated 17.10.2013, recommended to the Superintending Engineer that the petitioner can be released from debarment. The Superintending Engineer in turn also recommended for the same through his letter dated 19.10.2013, vide Annexure-6, to the Chief Engineer. Vide letter dated 28.10.2013, annexed as Annexure-7, the Chief Engineer also recommended for such release of the petitioner from debarment to the Engineer-in-Chief. However, he submits that the matter stands still at this stage. In the meanwhile, a tender notice (Annexure-9) was issued in response to which petitioner submitted its technical bid and financial bid.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the technical bids received in terms of the tender notice are in the process of being opened. He submits that the petitioner apprehends that its technical bid may be rejected due to its

¶10

Patna High Court CWJC No.22769 of 2013 (2) dt.14-11-2013

¶11

¶12

debarment order which has not yet been recalled in the light of the recommendations. He submits that the petitioner has submitted a representation also to the Secretary, vide Annexure-8 dated 1.11.2013, but no action has been taken on the same so far. He submits that the respondents may be directed to take a final decision on the said recommendations before the technical bid of the petitioner is opened and first stage of tender process is complete so that the technical bid of the petitioner may not be rejected on that ground.

¶13

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that, in view of the recommendations, this Court may direct the Secretary of the Rural Works Department to take final decision in the light of the recommendations, as noticed above, at the earliest.

¶14

This Court does not find anything wrong in debarring the Contractors, who had defaulted in work allotted to them earlier, from participating in future tender. But, if any Contractor claims that he has completed more than 80% of the work and, therefore, in the light of the government letter he is not liable to be debarred, the same has to be considered by the Department at the earliest. If such recommendation is made by the lower authorities of the Department on the basis of the measurement book then the Contractor could not be held debarred from participating in any

¶15

Patna High Court CWJC No.22769 of 2013 (2) dt.14-11-2013

¶16

¶17

tender process only on the ground that the recommendation of the subordinate authorities of the Department for releasing the contractor from debarment is lying in the offices of the Department unnoticed. Any such recommendation has to be considered immediately and final orders in accordance with law have to be passed on the same so that in case the Contractor is aggrieved by any adverse order he may take steps in accordance with law to challenge the same. But only because such recommendation is pending keeping the Contractor debarred from participating may be a violation of his rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.

¶18

This writ application is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the Secretary of the Department to consider all the recommendations received from the subordinate authorities of the Department for release from debarment before any decision is taken on their technical bid submitted in response to NIT issued by the Department later on.

¶19

(Jayanandan Singh, J)

¶20

Arvind/-

M/s Sawan Raj Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Sawan Raj Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sadhu Yadav and Ors. Vs Shibjee Yadav and Ors.

Ram Kumari Devi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Banshidhar Mishra Vs Dr. Umesh SHARMAand Ors.

Purnendu Chandra Sinha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Mosafir Paswan Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Parbati Kumari @ Parwati Devi Vs Chairman National Insurance Com.ltd and Ors.