M/S Surendra Prasad And Co. vs. The State Of Bihar And Ors

Held

The Court disposed of the writ application with a direction to the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Darbhanga. The Executive Engineer was directed to consider the petitioner's representations (Annexures P-8 and P-9) and any fresh representation submitted within one week from the date of the order. An appropriate decision was to be taken by the Executive Engineer, keeping in mind the terms and conditions of the tender documents and prevailing government guidelines on the subject. This decision was to be communicated to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of receipt or production of a copy of the order. The Court also directed that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner until such a decision was communicated. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claims regarding GST, material provisions, or earnest money release, but rather directed the concerned authority to take a decision.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Surendra Prasad and Co., filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court seeking directions to the respondents, officials of the Road Construction Department of Bihar. The petitioner's grievance was that the respondent authorities were not taking decisions on issues raised by them concerning a work order for the "Execution of the IRQP with Maintenance Work of Darbhanga-Kamtaul-Basaitha-Madhwapur Road (SH-75)". Specifically, the petitioner sought either the provision of GST and leads of materials under the Road Head in the Bill of Quantity (BOQ) or the release of their earnest money amounting to Rs. 58,65,783/-. The petitioner also requested a re-scheduling of the work order and a stay on coercive steps. Representations (Annexures P-8 and P-9) were submitted to the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Darbhanga.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authorities are obligated to make provision for GST and leads of materials under the Road Head in the Bill of Quantity for the specified road work, or alternatively, release the earnest money of the petitioner? 2. Whether the respondent authorities have failed to take a decision on the representations submitted by the petitioner regarding the aforementioned issues, thereby causing undue delay and hardship? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the respondent authorities were sitting over the matter and not deciding the issues raised. They sought directions to either include GST and material provisions in the BOQ or release their earnest money, and to re-schedule the work order. They also sought to restrain coercive action. Revenue/State's Arguments: The counsel for the State submitted that instead of keeping the writ application pending, it could be disposed of with a direction to the concerned authorities to examine the matter and take an appropriate decision in accordance with the tender document's terms and conditions and government guidelines. The State acknowledged that the road repair work was suffering due to the pendency of the writ application.