The decision of the Corporation in a public contract is subject to the terms and conditions of the tender, and the Managing Director's decision is final and binding in case of any dispute.

AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.

1. All defects ignored.

2. Heard Shri Sumeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Alok Ranjan, A.C. to AAG-5 for the State of Bihar and Mr. Niraj Kumar for the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited.

3. The dispute lies in a very short compass. Learned counsel has invited the attention of the Court to the fact that both the appellants Suman Kumar Mishra and Shivam Kumar Choudhary had made an offer for carrying out the handling work of the respondents relating to transportation of food supplies. The said offer was made in accordance with the terms and conditions of tender for Door Step Delivery of Food Grains for which sealed tenders were invited and the duration of the work was one year subject to its renewal by mutual consent for a further period of one year on the recommendations of the District Transport Committee. According to the learned counsel for the appellants even though the tenure of engagement has expired, the Corporation still continues to take work from those who had been selected without allowing the appellants to participate in the work in spite of the fact that they fulfill the eligibility conditions.

4. It appears that the District Magistrate, who happens to be the ex officio Chairman of the District Transportation Committee, issued an intimation on 17th May, 2016 informing the Managing Director of the Corporation about the selection of the transporters. The said document is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. According to the said document, the appellants were not found to be eligible for the reasons given therein. The objection against the appellant Suman Kumar Mishra was that his father was a licence-holder of a Fair Price Shop Dealership and, therefore, according to Clause 9.6 of the Tender Conditions the said appellant stood ineligible for participating in the tender bids. The Appellant No. 2 Shivam Kumar Choudhary was found to be deficient with regard to the Assessment Certificate furnished by him. Consequently, the appellants appear to have represented the matter before the District Transport Committee and after evaluating the grievances of the appellants the District Transport Committee under the resolution dated 29th May, 2017 accepted their explanations and found both the appellants to be eligible for participating and carrying out the work as entailed in the tender conditions. This is evident from the resolution dated 29th May, 2017 which has been filed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition.

5. The appellants thereafter tendered their documents pertaining to the vehicles that they had to offer for carrying out the said transportation work but the District Transport Committee neither did allocate any work to the appellants nor any information was given. To the contrary, the appellants who in spite of having been found eligible failed to get any intimation as a result whereof they filed Writ Petition No. 15989 of 2017. The said writ petition along with another Writ Petition No. 15929 of 2017 came to be heard by the learned Single Judge who arrived at the conclusion that the appellants had the remedy of approaching the District Magistrate who is the Chairman of the District Transport Committee by filing a representation for appropriate redressal of their grievance. It was also held that since the authority to award the said tender work lay within the domain of the Corporation, therefore, a writ petition would not be maintainable.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Single Judge erred in rejecting the writ petition inasmuch as this being a public contract and since the decision was arbitrary in spite of the appellants having been found to be eligible, therefore, a writ petition was maintainable as the decision of the Corporation not to give any work to the appellants was unreasonable and arbitrary and thereby hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was further submitted that since the work continued to be a