The financial viability for a tender should be established at the date of submission, and no party, including the State Government, can improve the offer or the terms of tender after submission.

Though served the respondent nos. 6 and 7 have not entered appearance. Respondent no.5 is reported to have refused to receive Court notice. Respondent no.5 is deemed to have been served.

2. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by one M/s Welcome Distilleries Private Limited, manufacturer of country liquor, to challenge the action of the State Government in rejecting the technical bid submitted by the petitioner.

3. On 24th October 2013, the State Government issued a tender notice inviting the liquor manufacturers to submit their offer for licence to manufacture country liquor and for bottling for the next five years commencing from 1st April 2014 upto 31st March 2019. In answer to the said notice, the petitioner has submitted its offer with relevant documents and credentials. After opening the tenders on 24th February 2014, the State Government invited all the tenderers to furnish their financial credentials afresh as on 24th February 2014. According to the State Government, the petitioner failed to meet the conditions of financial credentials as on 24th February 2014. Therefore, its technical bid has been rejected.

4. The terms and conditions of the tender notice, inter alia, provided that the tenderer must show solvency at least to the extent of 30% of the estimated expenses for bottling plant, i.e., minimum for Rs. 3 crores. In support of such solvency the tenderer may adduce evidence in the form of the Bank Certificate or the three years’ balance-sheet verified by the Chartered Accountant. In compliance with the said condition, the petitioner did produce the Bank Certificate in the form of Annexure 4 to the tender notice. As recorded hereinabove, after opening the tenders on 24th February 2014, the State Government called upon the tenderers to submit their financial credentials afresh as on 24th February 2014. According to the State Government, the fresh evidence produced by the petitioner was not sufficient for the required solvency of Rs.3 crores.

5. Learned Counsel Mr. Jitendra Singh has appeared for the petitioner. He has taken us through the aforesaid records. He has submitted that the technical bid of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected. The petitioner did produce the required credentials along with his tender. He could not have been asked to produce further credentials beyond what was required under the tender notice. In any view of the matter, the petitioner did produce further materials to show its financial status. There was adequate evidence in the form of bank accounts and the cash credit limit granted by the Bank to satisfy the tender requirement. The action of the State Government in rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner is not at all justified.

6. Learned Principal Additional Advocate General Mr. Lalit Kishore has appeared for the respondents. He has submitted that many a tenderers after showing their credentials or after producing the Bank Certificate withdrew the money from one account to the other and made fresh application showing balance in the other account. These discrepancies required the State Government to call for fresh credentials as on 24th February 2014, the date tenders were opened. He has also submitted that the tender notice explicitly notified that the tenderer must have a balance margin money, i.e. Rs. 3 crores. He has next submitted that the petitioner having submitted to the notice dated 26th February 2014 and having submitted its credentials as on 24th February 2014, it is not now open to the petitioner to challenge the said notice dated 26th February 2014.

7. We are informed at the Bar that the tender process is completed in respect of all seventeen zones in the State of Bihar. However, none of the contract has become operational for want of bottling plant. The contractors have been given time upto 30th September 2014 for completion and commissioning of bottling plant. Till then, temporary/ad hoc contracts have been awarded to the seven