ORDER
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
1.The writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for a declaration that the action of the respondents State in declaring the tender bid of the 5th respondent, M/s. Kamal Nayan Narsaria as technically suitable and qualified, as illegal, as also for consequent grant of work order, being arbitrary and against the notice inviting tender and the terms and conditions attached thereto.
2. An advertisement and notice inviting Tender No. 10–Year 2001-02 was issued from the office of the respondent, Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation (R.E.O. for short), Works Division, Khunti for construction of 223.60 Meters long Bridge. The estimated cost was shown as Rs. 458.569 Lakhs. Apart from other conditions, it was also mentioned that those tenderer having minimum experience of construction of 250 Meters long Bridge, may apply. It was also mentioned that any tenderer along with tender paper may submit a better structure and design than the Detailed Project Report (DPR) and if estimated cost is lesser, after approval of the Technical Committee, if it is found to be correct, such tender may also be approved.
3. There were three participants in the tender bid, namely :
(a) 5th Respondent M/s. Kamal, Nayan Narsaria;
(b) M/s. K.K. Builders; and
(c) Petitioner-M/s. Rameshwaram. The work order having awarded in favour of the 5th Respondent, the writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner alleging mala fide and irregularities in allotment of work.
4. When the case was earlier taken up for admission, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that work order has been allotted in favour of the 5th respondent, though the said respondent has not submitted tender as per the D.P.R., nor a separate structure and design of Bridge has been submitted by the said respondent. The Engineer-in-Chief, R.E.O. was called to assist the Court who made certain statement as was recorded on 16th May, 2002, as quoted hereunder :
“In pursuance of Court’s order, Mr. Madan Mohan Prasad,Engineer-in-Chief, R.E.O. Ranchi is present. He accepts that the total structure and design of bridge in question has not yet been submitted by Respondent No. 5 to find out as to whether the structure and design is better than DPR or not i.e. the structure and design submitted by MECON. This has to be seen as per Clause 28 of the tender notice. He states that allotment order has been issued in favour of respondent No. 5 on 20.4.2002 with condition that he will have to submit a better structure and design within one month.
Mr. M.K. Roy, counsel appeared and filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 6. In the circumstances, no notice need be issued to him as was ordered on 15.5.2002.
Notice be issued on respondent No. 5 immediately as ordered on 15.5.2002.
Place this case for admission on 25th June, 2002 within ten cases.
8. Admittedly, no separate structure and design of the Bridge was submitted by the 5th respondent along with tender papers. It was not placed before the Technical Committee to find out whether it is permanent structure and design better than the design submitted by MECON or not. Without following the procedure, the work order was issued. This was enough ground to set aside the work order as made in favour of the 5th respondent.
9. The Court allowed the 5th respondent to submit structure and design of the Bridge before the competent authority to find out whether it is better, permanent structure and design having lesser cost. Though, it was submitted but not placed before any Technical Committee. In this background, the Court formed a Committee consisting of Engineer-in-Chief, REO, Engineer-in-Chief, Vigilance and Engineer-in-Chief, Water resources Department who were directed to submit a report relating to viability of structure and design of the Bridge submitted by the 5th respondent, as per Clause 28 of Notice Inviting Tender.
10. Curiously, said Committee though submitted report have not given any detail relating to viability of structure and design and merely approved it on the ground that the cost shown is lesser than the estimated cost.
11. On hearing the parties, numerous technical and legal defects came to the notice of the Court, as mentioned hereunder :
(a) The 5th respondent had not submitted any separate, permanent structure and design along with tender documents to find out whether it was better than the structure and design prepared by MECON, as shown in the DPR. Inspite of such infirmity the work order was issued in favour of the 5th respondent; on 20th April, 2002.
(b) Even after submission of such structure and design, the State Government never placed it before the Technical Committee, as per Clause 28 of Notice Inviting Tender;
(c) The Committee constituted by the Court simply given chit of approval without discussing the viability of structure and design as was required to be given as per Clause 28 of the Notice Inviting Tender; and
(b) The major defect is that in the Notice Inviting Tender, though it was specifically mentioned that the length of the Bridge shall be 223.60 Meters, the length of the Bridge shown in the structure and design submitted by the 5th respondent is only 180 Meters i.e., 43.60 Meters less than the requisite specification.
The Committee though noticed that the length of the Bridge design submitted by the 5th respondent is only 180 Meters i.e., lesser than the requisite length as shown in the Notice Inviting Tender remained silent in respect to such defect.
12. There are certain elements such as specifications in the Notice Inviting Tender, which cannot be varied by any authority without a fresh notice, as the applicants are required to submit tenders on the basis of such specifications. If the length of the Bridge was shown in the Notice Inviting Tender as 223.60 Meters, the respondents State authorities can not accept the design of a Bridge having lesser length of 180 Meters that too much beyond the prescribed period of limitation.
The aforesaid action gives an impression of extraneous, consideration by the officers to allot the work order in favour of the 5th respondent, which was allotted even prior to submission of the detailed report and design. However, no allegation of mala fide having made against any individual officer, no specific finding is given by me against any one or other.
13. From the aforesaid facts, it will be evident that the action in allotting work order in favour of the 5th respondent in pursuance of Notice Inviting Tender, in question, is mala fide in law, illegal and arbitrary.
14. The respondents are directed to restart the process of selection to grant work order after a fresh Notice Inviting Tender.
15. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.