IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.975 of 2008 SUO MOTU CONTEMPT INITIATED AGAINST SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER UNDER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, DUMRA, SITAMARHI & ANR ----------- Advocate for the State - Learned Advocate General Learned SC-X. Advocate for OP-3 - Sri Ram Balak Mahto, Sr. Advocate. Sri K. Ravish Advocate for OP-4 - Sri Mrigank Mauli. ---------- 11 25.11.2008 The present proceedings were initiated suo motu by this Court by order dated 10.04.2008, as passed in CWJC No. 8737 of 2007. The said writ petition was filed on 20.07.2007 by one Amrendra Kumar. He had challenged the actions of respondents including Principal Secretary, PWD, Superintending Engineer, PWD Muzaffarpur, Executive Engineer, PWD, Dumra, Sitamarhi and the Assistant Engineer, PWD, Dumra, Sitamarhi in entertaining the tender of private-respondent, Achal Kumar Singh, respondent no. 7. The grievance of the petitioner was that on the day when tender papers were to be filed for repair and construction of road known as “Sasaula Kataiya Link Adauri Road”. Petitioner was physically restrained by respondent no. 7 for filing tender paper. Matter was reported to the Collector of the District and an F.I.R. was lodged against respondent no. 7. Respondent no.7 managed to be the only tenderer and this is what that brought the petitioner to this Court. Noticing the said controversy in the said writ petition interim order was passed on 01.09.2008 “All decisions in respect of the said tender taken would be subject to the final result of the case and in case - 2 - tender has not yet been finalized, no fresh order awarding the tender would be issued.” Notices were also issued to respondent no. 7 and State was directed to seek instruction and file a comprehensive counter affidavit. As per Office report, notices were duly served on private-respondent no. 7 on 03.02.2008, but he chose not to participate in the proceedings before this Court. On 10.04.2008 when the writ petition was taken up for admission learned counsel for the State on instruction informed this Court that pursuant to the tender submitted by respondent no. 7, which was under challenge and in relation whereto on 21.11.2007 interim order, as above, had been passed. Respondent no. 7 was given the tender after rate negotiation in March 2008 and in March 2008 agreement had been executed with him and work started by him, notwithstanding, interim restrain order by this Court. It is under those circumstances, this Court started suo motu contempt proceedings by order dated 10.04.2008. Pursuant to notices issued the then Superintending Engineer, Raghu Nandan Chaudhary filed his first show cause. In the said show cause he merely stated that he received orders from the Chief Engineer vide order dated 25.02.2008 to proceed for finalizing this tender and inform the Chief Engineer accordingly. It is pursuant to this that the Superintending Engineer directed the Executive Engineer, Wakil Singh vide his letter dated 15.03.2008 to immediately finalize the tender. The Superintending Engineer then states that it was for the Executive Engineer to inform him about the interim order, which was - 3 - not done. The Superintending Engineer further states that he was merely passing orders for implementation of directions issued from Chief Engineer and put the entire responsibility on the Executive Engineer, Wakil Singh, to establish his bona fide, he has further stated that he has passed orders canceling the contract issued in favour of respondent no. 7. This Court at this juncture to enquire from learned State counsel as to who are the persons and to whom the interim order was communicated. An affidavit has been filed from the Office of learned standing counsel no. 10. This affidavit clearly states that communications of the interim order were immediately made to all respondents including Superintending Engineer and the Executive Engineer. This affidavit totally falsified the apparent stand of ignorance and innocence on behalf of the Superintending Engineer, who then filed a second show cause. Here again, he sought to shirk his responsibility in the matter and throw the burden on the Executive Engineer, Wakil Singh. Meanwhile, the Department taking cognizance of this mishappening suspended the then Executive Engineer, Wakil Singh and initiated departmental proceedings completely leaving out other officials. He intervened and brought this thing on record of this Court. In his application the Executive Engineer, Wakil Singh brought on record that not only the Superintending Engineer communicated to him the order of Chief Engineer to proceed with tender. He fixed a time limit within which agreement must be executed and reported back of communication to the Chief Engineer. He states that it is under those - 4 - circumstances that he was left with no option but to execute the agreement. Finding this anomalies situation this Court brought these facts to the notice of the learned Advocate General, because two things clearly stood out. Firstly, the allegation in the writ petition being that respondent no. 7 was maneuvering things and had the support of departmental authorities. It is stood virtually established that respondent no. 7 first prevented any other tenderer from filing his tender paper and then notwithstanding interim order of this Court, rather, in defiance thereof, agreements were executed in his favour and work allotted and work taken from him. Surely, someone in the department was highly interested in ensuring that the work given to respondent no. 7 at any cost, even at the cost of ignoring judicial order of restrain passed by this Court. This, indeed is a very serious matter affecting the dignity and majesty of this Court and totally destructive of rule of law. For this part, I direct the State Government to enquire into this matter expeditiously and fix the responsibility for unduly favouring respondent no. 7 and if found appropriate, initiate criminal action in terms of the Bihar Prevention of Specified Corrupt Practices Act, 1983 against the Officers concerned and file a report in this regard to this Court within three months from today. The second issue that stands established is that the Superintending Engineer apparently is not as innocent as he professes to be in response to this. Learned Advocate General made submissions in the bar that the State has examined the matter and decided to initiate departmental - 5 - proceedings as against the Superintending Engineer, as well. This Court wishes to observe that all proceedings in relation to this matter may it be departmental or other enquiries should be concluded expeditiously within three months and report file to this Court. As I have left the matter in the hands of the State to be decided as per their enquiry report. It should be independent and impartial. I do not wish to proceed further in the matter. The State should realize that if Court’s orders are so easily and flagrantly violated rule of law would collapse and there would be nothing left with the Courts to do and it would lead to complete anarchy in the State. Official dealings with this matter must keep in mind this aspect because if appropriate actions and remedial actions are not taken the entire system of administration would collapse. It would not be in interest of either the State or its citizens, except for the purposes of the reports to file before this Court on expiry of three months from today. This proceeding is closed. Let a copy of this order be given to learned State counsel no. 10. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.)