Judgment:
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. Petitioners have prayed for quashing the letter dated 6.5.2004, issued by the Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation, Ranchi whereby work order for the construction of road has been allotted to respondent No. 6.
3. Pursuant to short Tender Notice No. 01/04, issued by the Executive Engineer, REO, Work Circle Ranchi, petitioners along with others submitted their respective tenders. After completion of the process of the said tender, a comparative statement of the work was prepared. The Executive Engineer recommended the case of the petitioners and respondent No. 6 for allotment of work. The Superintending Engineer also sent recommendation for allotment of work to the petitioners and respondent No. 6 but the Chief Engineer approved the tender only in favour of respondent No. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assailed the impugned allotment made by the Chief Engineer in favour of respondent No. 6 only as being illegal, arbitrary and whimsical. According to learned counsel, when the Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer recommended for allotment of work to all the three contractors, namely, the petitioners and respondent No. 6 then the Chief Engineer ought not to have allotted the work to respondent No. 6 only.
4. From perusal of the counter-affidavit, filed by the respondents, it appears that all the three contractors, namely, the petitioners were allotted work previously. Petitioner No. 1, Pankaj Kumar Singh, was allotted work of upgradation and improvement of road from Jharia to Hutar and Ranchi-Purulla Road to Mardu via Lagan Road Point but he has not completed the work even after the expiry of completion date i.e. 20.9.03 and the progress of work is very poor. Similarly,. petitioner No. 2, Shambhu Singh, was allotted work of upgradation of road from Daladali Chowk to Mahadeopur and construction of road from Kuchu to Palu but he has also not completed the work allotted to him even after the expiry of completion date i.e. 20.9.03, and progress of work is very poor. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that respondent No. 6 is the seniormost tenderer according to the registration and previously he has not been allotted any work In this division. These facts have not been denied by the petitioners in their reply to the counter- affidavit. They have taken a plea that because of disturbance and interference of anti-social elements work could not be completed. It is, therefore, clear that these petitioners were allotted work earlier for construction, repair, upgradation and improvement of road but they failed to complete the work within the time and have not completed as yet.
5. In my opinion, therefore, the allotment of work by the Chief Engineer to respondent No. 6 is fully Justified. The decision of the Chief Engineer in allotting work to respondent No. 6 needs no interference by this Court. However, it must be clarified that respondent No. 6 must complete the work within the stipulated time, failing which the Chief Engineer shall cancel the agreement and get the work completed through other agency.