Back
2012 Supreme(Pat) 407
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
S.N. HUSSAIN, J.
M/s G.L.R. Traders through its Proprietor Pankaj Kumar Jha, son of Shri Komal Nath Jha, resident of 1-M, Jagdish Lok Apartment, Boring Canal Road, P.O. + P.S. S. K. Puri, District Patna - Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8923 of 2011
Decided on: 13.3.2012
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M/s Alamdar Hussain, Bishnu Kant Dubey.
For Respondents no.1 to 7: M/s P.N. Shahi, Sanjeet Kumar Singh.
For Respondent no. 8: M/s Mrigank Mauli, Samir Kuar.
For Respondent no. 9: M/s Mithilesh Kumar Rai, Arun Kumar Singh.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of compliance with tender terms and conditions, and the validity of contractor registration under the Bihar Contractors Registration Rule 2007.
Headnote:
Tender Manipulation - Public Procurement - Bihar Contractors Registration Rule 2007, NIT terms and conditions - The court discussed the manipulation of tender bids, rejection of petitioner's bid, and the validity of the contractor's registration under the Bihar Contractors Registration Rule 2007. The key legal provisions discussed include the NIT terms and conditions and the Bihar Contractors Registration Rule 2007.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to open its financial rate bid for a tender work, alleging manipulation by the Executive Engineer and rejection of its bid based on technicalities. The petitioner claimed that it fulfilled all terms and conditions of the tender.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's bid was rejected based on valid grounds, including non-submission of necessary documents and improper registration under the Bihar Contractors Registration Rule 2007. The court dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the rejection of the petitioner's bid, alleged manipulation of tender bids, and the validity of the contractor's registration under the Bihar Contractors Registration Rule 2007.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rejection of the petitioner's bid was justified based on non-compliance with necessary documents and improper registration. The court also emphasized the importance of adhering to the terms and conditions of the tender.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the rejection of the petitioner's bid and finding no merit in the petitioner's claims.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing respondent-authorities to open the petitioner’s financial rate bid relating to tender work for installation of Iron Removal Plant System in Primary/Middle Schools in Katihar and Purnea districts pursuant to Tender notifications no. 05/2010-11 and 06/2010-11, respectively issued by the Executive Engineer, Public Health Division of the districts and also for directing the Vigilance Department (Engineer-in-Chief Technical Vigilance Cell) to enquire into the entire process of tender, which, according to the petitioner, was manipulated by the Executive Engineer in connivance with the contractors concerned.
2. The claim of the petitioner was that pursuant to the aforesaid notifications, it purchased Bill of Quantity (BOQ) on 10.01.2011 and submitted technical bid and financial bid for both the places along with the required papers in the office of the Regional Chief Engineer and the technical bid was opened on 11.01.2011, but the petitioner’s bid was opened on 15.01.2011 and its financial bid was not opened although it fulfilled all the terms. It was also stated that the petitioner made complaint on 02.02.2011 and filed another representation on 14.02.2011 before the Regional Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department (hereinafter referred to as `the P.H.E.D’ for the sake of brevity), Bhagalpur and the Chief Engineer, P.H.E.D., Purnea, whereafter the Chief Engineer, P.H.E.D., Purnea ordered for an enquiry and, accordingly, the Superintending Engineer, P.H.E.D, Purnea Circle, Purnea submitted his enquiry report on 04.05.2011 stating that it was only the financial bid of the petitioner, which should have been opened as it fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the tender, whereas, all other tenderers were not qualified in their technical bids and hence their financial bids should not have been opened. The reason for rejection of the petitioner’s bid was that it did not submit three documents, namely, (i) SL No.9 details of any technical personnel permanently employed by the contractors; (ii) SL No. 10 Character Certificate and (iii) Labour Licence.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that the technical bids of other contractors were opened on 11.01.2011, whereas, technical bid of the petitioner was opened on 15.01.2011, which clearly proved that the petitioner was targetted to be ousted from the tender bid. He also stated that in comparative statements of technical bid of Purnea Division name of contractor had been shown as G.L.R. Traders, whereas, in comparative statements of technical bid of Katihar Division, name of contractor has been shown as Pankaj Kumar Jha (Proprietor of G.L.R. Traders).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also claimed that G.L.R. Traders is a firm and Pankaj Kumar Jha is its Proprietor and the said firm was firstly registered on 29.08.2008 under the PHED, Bihar from 02.09.2008 to 01.09.2011, whereafter on 28.05.2009 the PHED issued a notification that it has also accepted the Bihar Contractor Registration Rules 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘2007 Rules’ for the sake of brevity), which is enforced in RCD with effect from 07.05.2007. As per 2007 Rules, every contractor has to get his licence renewed within six months. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following grounds :-
(a) In pursuance of notification dated 28.05.2009 petitioner also applied through its proprietor Pankaj Kumar Jha (Annexure 14 series) of the second supplementary affidavit with an affidavit (at page 119) that Pankaj Kumar Jha is the proprietor of G.L.R. Traders as in the new format for application for renewal (Annexure K) of Bihar Contract Rules 2007 there was no column to furnish the name of firm whereas in old Rule 1996, there was separate column to furnish details in case any firm is registered. It has also deposited Rs.1,00,000/- as per rule name of G.L.R. Traders and a receipt of the same
