Md. Ruhul Amin CJ
M.M. Ruhul Amin J
Md. Hassan Ameen J
Chayon Ahmed Chowdhury………Petitioner
Bangladesh Water Development Board, represented by its Director General, WAPDA Bhaban, Motijheel Commercial Area, Police Station-Motijheel, Dhaka and others……….Respondents
August 5, 2007.
Fariduddin Md. Reza, Advocate, instructed by Mohammad Nawab Ali, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioner.
Md. Abdur Nur, Advocate-on-Record- For the Respondents.
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1711 of 2005.
(From the Judgment and Order dated August 10, 2005 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.5112 of 2004)
Md. Ruhul Amin CJ. – This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated August 10, 2005 of a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.5112 of 2004 discharging the Rule.
2. The writ petition was filed impugning the Annexure-F to the writ petition whereby the writ petitioner was directed to take back the Oilless Bush supplied by him within 3 days and in case of failure to take back the aforesaid Bush the Bangladesh Water Development Board shall have no liability or responsibility as regard the said goods.
3. The aforesaid annexure was issued by the respondent No.6, the Executive Engineer, Central Work shop Division, Tejgaon Industrial Area, Dhaka. The writ petitioner was directed to take back the goods since the said goods were not supplied as per terms and conditions of the tender schedule.
4. It was the case of the writ petitioner that the respondent No.6 invited tender for supplying Oil-Less Bush “for 2 nos, Navigation Lock Gate (size 5.00m X 8.20m.) 14 nos Radial Gate (size 3.00mX 4.346m)”. He (the petitioner) participated in the tender and dropped his bid and his bid was accepted and a contract was executed between the writ petitioner and the defendant No.6 for supplying the goods as mentioned in the tender schedule. In due course the respondent No.6 issued the work order to the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner supplied the goods and the same was received by the respondent No. 6 without objection and that the respondent No. 6 was silent for 6 months after acceptance of the goods and did not raise any objection as to quality of the goods, that after lapse of considerable time the respondent No.6 issued letter to the writ petitioner to take back the goods on the ground that from the report of the BUET it was found that the goods were not of the quality as were required to be. The writ petitioner challenged the letter written to him with the request to take back the goods by filing writ petition and obtained Rule.
5. The Rule was opposed by the respondents by filing affidavit-in-opposition denying the contentions of the writ petitioner and stating, inter alia, that the goods supplied by the writ petitioner were not as per specification and the same were returned and thereafter the writ petitioner again supplied the goods and the goods which were supplied were tested in the laboratory of BUET and the goods were not found as per specification and thereupon goods were returned to the writ petitioner for the second time, that on the request of the writ petitioner information was supplied to him as regard the kinds of goods he would be required to supply as per terms and conditions of the tender and schedule attached to the tender and thereupon writ petitioner supplied goods and the same were sent to the BUET and the test report revealed that the goods were not as per specification and thereupon the writ petitioner was requested by the letter written by the respondent No.6 to take back the goods supplied by him.
6. It was the case of the contesting respondents that because of unholy alliance between the writ petitioner and the respondent No.6, the respondent No.6 introduced some contradictory things in his letter dated May 17, 2004 and for that departmental action has already been taken against him.
7. The High Court Division upon hearing the parties and on consideration of the materials on record held that as the goods supplied by the writ petitioner were not as per specification of the tender schedule there was no wrong in writing the letter requesting the writ petitioner to take back the goods supplied by him. The High Court Division has also observed that the defendant No.6 wrote something in his letter dated May 17, 2004 which were contradictory to the context and contents of the letter.
8. It may be mentioned that the writ petitioner could not dislodge the claim of the respondents that the goods supplied by him (writ petitioner) were not as per specification as was in the tender notice and also as per contract entered into between the writ petitioner and the respondents. In that view of the matter we are of the view the High Court Division was not in error in discharging the Rule obtained impugning the letter dated May 17, 2004 (Annexure-F to the writ petition) written by the respondent No.6.
In the background of the discussion made hereinabove we do not find any merit in the petition.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
source: , (AD)