IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17732 of 2009 SHEO KUMAR SINGH, son of Sri Jagarnath Roy, resident of Lalji Tola, Near Devi Asthan, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, Town and District – Patna. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the (Civil) Secretary, Department of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Engineer-I (civil), Civil Construction Wing, All India Radio, 6th Floor, Suchana Bhawan, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. 3. The Superintending Engineer (Civil), Prasar Bharti, All India Radio, Civil Construction Wing, Doordarshan Bhawan, 4th floor, Golf Green, Kolkata-700095. 4. The Executive Engineer (Civil), Civil Construction Wing, All India Radio, Patna. ----------- 03. 13.01.2010 The dispute raised in the present writ application is that the respondent authorities only to debar the petitioner from successfully participating in the tender floated by All India Radio brought about a fresh notice inviting tender in breach of the earlier terms and directions dated 9.11.2009. The first notice inviting tender is Annexure-3 and the second notice inviting tender dated 1.12.2009 which is Annexure-9 to the writ application. The difference between the two tender notices is that in the first notice approved contractors even by the PWD Department of Jharkhand and Bihar were allowed to participate but in the subsequent notice inviting tender contained in Annexure-9 the word ‘Bihar’ was missing. According to the petitioner, this was deliberately done to shut him out from participation. Petitioner has also pleaded and brought material on record that local authorities were trying to create trouble for him. When he has raised his grievance against non-supply of tender papers the Superintending Engineer intervened in the matter - 2 - and the second notice inviting tender was the reason thereof but the Executive Engineer played mischief by omitting the word ‘Bihar’. A counter affidavit has come to be filed on behalf of respondents All India Radio duly sworn by the Executive Engineer (Civil). They have denied any kind of wrong doing in the matter. Their stand is that the second notice inviting tender was based on a communication received from New Delhi, which is Annexure – R/11 to the counter affidavit. The necessary correction in the second notice inviting tender had to be carried when information was given to the Headquarters that since registration of contractors was allowed and permitted by the State of Jharkhand, therefore, the old registration of contractors with the State of Bihar by itself was not enough any more. The other dimension pointed out is that in terms of the provisions of the CPWD Code and specially para 17.3.4 of the manual which has been annexed with the counter affidavit as Annexure-R/1, work is to be assigned only to State PWD contractors and thereafter the work is to be carried out. That is the rule and not the exception. The exception is that Additional Director General of the region has powers to relax the same and permit other contractors of the State to participate but that can only be done if the relaxation is issued at that level. In the present case it is not disputed that the work in question relates to construction of boundary wall and gate of the proposed office complex located at Ranchi. If the petitioner had made a grievance against non supply of tender papers as per the - 3 - earlier notice inviting tender, the matter was also examined on the complaints and inputs provided to the Headquarters on the issue. The provisions of the CPWD Code having been brought to the notice of the authorities at Delhi the necessary amendment was incorporated in the fresh notice inviting tender. Even though on the face of it the second notice inviting tender looked discriminatory but in view of the material having been annexed with the counter affidavit coupled with the provisions of CPWD Code, the Court has no hesitation in certifying that re- tendering with correction has not been issued with the object of denying benefit to the petitioner or to create mischief . Learned counsel representing the respondents further informs the Court that the work pursuant to the said tender dated 1.12.2009 has already been awarded and substantial progress has been made in this regard. That is an additional reason for non- interference. The writ has no merit and is dismissed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)