IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1018 of 2010
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1173 of 2010
======================================================
1. Uday Shankar Prasad S/O Late Prayag Narayan R/O Village + P.O.-
Sarbahdi, P.S.- Manpur, Distt.- Nalanda, At Present- Mohalla- Udantpuri,
Garhper, P.O. + P.O.- Biharsharif, Distt.- Nalanda, State-Bihar
…Petitioner …. Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary Rural Works Department, ‘Vishweshwaraiya
Bhawan’, Baily Road, Patna
3. The Engineer-In-Chief – Cum – Additional Commissioner Cum Special
Secretary Rural Works Department, ‘Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan’, Baily
Road, Patna
4. The Chief Engineer-1, Rural Works Department ‘Vishweshwaraiya
Bhawan’, Baily Road, Patna
5. The Chief Engineer-3, Rural Works Department ‘Vishweshwaraiya
Bhawan’, Baily Road, Patna
6. The Chief Engineer-4 (Headquarter), Rural Works Department
‘Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan’, Baily Road, Patna
7. The Joint Secretary, Rural Works Department ‘Vishweshwaraiya
Bhawan’, Baily Road, Patna
8. The Executive Engineer Rural Works Department, Works Division,
Biharsharif (Nalanda)
9. M/S Dayanand Prasad Sinha & Co. Through Its Partner Mr. Dayanand
Prasad Sinha Office Situated At Mohalla- Usha Street, Janta Path,
Kankarbagh Road, P.O.- Lohia Nagar, Patna-800020
…Respondents …. Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr Basant Kr. Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Manish Sahay, Advocate
For the State : Mr Sanjay Kumar Singh, AC to SC 23
Mr. Raj Kishore Prasad
For the Pvt. Respondents: Mr Y. V. Giri, Sr. Advocate
Mr Tej Bahadur Roy, Advocate
Mr Raj Kishore Prasad, Advocate
======================================================
4 22-11-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused
the order of the Writ Court.
Patna High Court LPA No.1018 of 2010 (4) dt.22-11-2011
2
The writ petition filed on 21.1.2010 by the appellant
essentially challenges the action of the respondent authorities in
deciding to grant tender in favour of M/s Daya Nand Pd. Sinha.
That decision by the tender committee was taken on 23.12.2009 as
appears from Anneuxre- 9. Thereafter allotment order was issued
as a consequence and the formal order was issued on 30.12.2009
and prayer in CWJC No.1173 of 2010 which has been dismissed
by the Writ Court by order under appeal dated 2.4.2010, is only for
quashing of the allotment order with regard to the work in question
mentioned at serial no.45 in the decision of the departmental
tender committee.
On behalf of the appellant it has been submitted that an
order of debarment passed against the appellant on 31.7.2009
(Annexure- 3) was ultimately stayed by a Division Bench of this
Court for a limited period vide judgment dated 1.12.2009
(Annexure- 7) and the matter was left to be decided by the
authorities after considering appellant’s show cause and ultimately
the debarment order was lifted on 22.2.2010 (Annexure- 17).
Hence, the award of allotment order or acceptance of tenders in
respect of the work in question was illegal and improper. It has
further been submitted that decision in favour of Daya Nand
Prasad Sinha was taken in haste and that shows at least malafide in
Patna High Court LPA No.1018 of 2010 (4) dt.22-11-2011
3
law on the part of the authorities.
The Writ Court has considered the relevant facts
including the order of the Division Bench dated 1.12.2009 for
coming to the conclusion that no right was created for the interim
period in favour of the appellant on account of that order. We are
in agreement with the conclusions of the Writ Court.
In order to succeed against the authorities taking
decision in the matter, the appellant was required to claim a right
of filing tender in respect of the work in question but since no such
right was granted to him, he could not have been considered at the
relevant time when the tender committee took the decision on
23.12.2009. Even otherwise, even if the appellant’s tender had
been available with the authorities, it is difficult for courts to
decide whose tender should be accepted by the tender committee.
In the facts of the case when no party has been
impleaded by name and in the writ petition even Daya Nand
Prasad Sinha and Company was not impleaded, it is not possible to
hold that there was any malafide on the part of any authority in
accepting the tender of M/s Daya Nand Prasad Sinha and
Company. It is not possible to grant any relief to the appellant in
the present appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. This decision will
not stand in the way of the appellant in claiming any relief for
Patna High Court LPA No.1018 of 2010 (4) dt.22-11-2011
4
work already done by him by taking recourse to arbitration clause
or any other appropriate proceeding in accordance with law.
(Shiva Kirti Singh, J)
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)
sk