ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR)

Date : 02-05-2024 Heard Mr. Anurag Saurav, learned counsel representing the petitioner in both the cases; Mr. Kumar Abhimanyu Pratap, learned counsel for the Bihar State Building Construction Corporation Ltd. (for short “the Corporation”) and the learned counsel for the State.

2. Considering the identical issue(s) based on similar facts between the same parties, both the writ petitions have been heard together and being disposed of by a common order.

3. The writ-petitioner is a Class-I Contractor under the Bihar Enlistment of Contractors Rules, 1996 (for short “the Rules, 1996”). On being aggrieved by the order of debarment from participating in the future tender(s) vide letters bearing no.

1108 and 1110 both dated 15.12.2023, the petitioner has preferred the writ petitions seeking quashing of the same.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that against the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) issued by the Deputy General Manager of the Corporation, Muzaffarpur for construction of 200 Bedded Virhad Ashraya Griha at Bettiah in District-West Champaran and at Narauli Sen in District- Muzaffarpur, the petitioner submitted his respective bids. Having been qualified in the technical bid and financial bid, the petitioner (firm) was found L-1 and declared successful in the bid process. The respondent-Corporation, accordingly, issued letter of acceptance requesting the petitioner to submit the performance security and additional performance guarantee as per the prescription provided therein. The writ-petitioner entered into agreements bearing no. SBD03 of 2021-22 dated 14.10.2021 and SBD07 of 2021-22 dated 25.02.2022 with the respondent-Corporation. As per the terms of the contract, the entire work was to be completed within eighteen months.

5. Adverting to the afore-noted fundamental facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner, thus, contended that while the works were in progress, in the meantime, respondent no.4 vide different letters, directed respondent no.5 to provide a list of additional work at the construction site of 200 Bedded Virhad Ashraya Griha at both the sites in West Champaran and Muzaffarpur. The additional work in both the projects contained construction of path/road, increase of height of peripheral boundary wall, wire fencing and vitrified tiles. The additional work estimate was sent for approval by respondent no.5. After three months, respondent no.3 vide his letters dated 27.01.2023 and 28.01.2023 approved the supplementary work.

6. In the afore-noted premise, the petitioner entered into a supplementary agreement to the original agreement for the additional work allotted to him. However, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that no additional time was granted to complete the work.

7. It is the case of the writ-petitioner that the work was commenced on time and there had never been any complaint with regard to progress of the work, which fact is also fortified from the fact that the petitioner had received all the payments on time. Specific assertion has been made in the writ petitions that the petitioner has completed 90% of the allotted work. However, despite all the best efforts, the work could not be completed on time due to the fault entirely on the part of the respondent-Corporation.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that delay in obtaining permission for soil filling in campus of the project site; not making payment of the project, as the allotment of fund was not available with the Department; delay in providing drawing of pending works; approval for construction of PCC road and due to rain are the reasons of delay disclosed by the writ-petitioner. Despite the additional work by way of supplementary contract agreement, no additional time was granted for supplementary work and there was delay on the part of the respondent-Corporation and its authorities but, all of a sudden, the Deputy General Manager of Corporation,