Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... vs M/S Vinod Kumar Jain on 29 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A No. 232 of 2020
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary,
Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand
2. The Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department,
Govt. of Jharkhand
3. The Chief Engineer (Commercial), Road Construction Department,
Govt. of Jharkhand
4. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department,
Road Division, Garhwa --- --- Appellants
Versus
M/s Vinod Kumar Jain, a registered partnership firm, Jashpurnagar,
Chhatisgarh through its partner Mukesh Kumar Jain--- ---Respondent
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan
---
For the Appellants: M/s Sachin Kumar, A.A.G-II, Gaurav Raj, A.C to A.A.G-II
For the Respondents: M/s Sumeet Gadodia, Aanya, Surbhi Agarwal, Advocates
---
15 / 29.09.2022 The Appellant-State was aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated
14.01.2020 rendered in W.P (C) No. 5894/2019 by the learned single Judge,
whereby the third call tender issued by the State Respondent was quashed and
the Respondent State was directed to proceed further with the petitioner, as per
the terms and conditions of the said tender. There were three other writ
petitions decided by the common impugned judgment but they were related to
W-1 and W-2 nature of work with which the instant writ petition is not
intricately connected. The instant matter relates to a separate tender i.e. W-3
nature of work in which the writ petitioner was found to be the lowest tenderer
but tender itself was revoked and a fresh tender was issued which was the
subject matter of challenge in the writ petition.
2. During pendency of this appeal, the writ petitioner had, by way of an
affidavit dated 02.09.2022, stated that he is still willing to execute the work at
the rate at which he was declared L-1 tenderer under the NIT dated 26.10.2019.
3. State was asked to come with categorical instructions on this stand of the
writ petitioner. On 27.09.2022, the Appellant No. 2-Engineer-in-Chief, Road
Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand and Appellant No. 4-
Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Garhwa
appeared in the court pursuant to the order dated 21.09.2022. An affidavit has
been filed yesterday by the Appellant No. 2 stating as under:
5. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the department is willing to
assign the work to the writ petitioner (L-1 tenderer) at the rate quoted by
the writ petitioner in the second call, which is 26.32% below the Bill of
Quantity amount / rate (BOQ rate).
6. That it is humbly stated and submitted that as the bid is unbalanced (as
bid was submitted at the rate much below the BOQ rate), so clause 29.5
and 34.1 of Standard Bid Document (SBD) are attracted to the Bidder
(L-1 tenderer). The petitioner will be required to submit rate justification,
detailed price analysis and additional performance guarantee as per the
SBD and circulars of the Department.
7. That on fulfilling the aforesaid conditions, the Department will take a
decision to award the work to the bidder on the terms and conditions of
the SBD uploaded by the Department at the time of tender / bidding.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that because of lapse of time, any
fresh tender may entail further upward revision in the estimate of work.
Therefore, State is inclined to award the work in favour of the writ petitioner
upon satisfaction of the conditions as indicated in paragraph-6 of the affidavit.
5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner / Respondent herein Mr. Sumeet
Gadodia submits that the petitioner stands by its affidavit indicating its
willingness to execute the work at L-1 rate.
6. In that view of the matter, there is no purpose in entering into the
adjudication of the dispute on merits. Appeal is accordingly disposed of in
terms of the statement made in the affidavit of the State. I.A. No. 4566/2020 is
closed. It is expected that the parties should adhere to the timeline in execution
of the work.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Deepak Roshan, J)
Ranjeet/
