Back
2020 Supreme(Pat) 122
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MADHURESH PRASAD, J.
Abhay Shankar Singh Son of Sri Ramjee Singh – Appellant
Versus
The Bihar Urban Infrastructural Development Corporation Ltd. (BUIDCO) through its Managing Director - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5721 of 2020
Decided on : 28-05-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr.Arun Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr.Lalit Kishore (Ag)
Headnote:
Government Contract – Cancellation of earlier tender process and issuance of new Tender Notice – Petitioner has not placed on record any document to show that he was ever declared successful in tender process – Tender process had not attained finality – No right had accrued in favour of petitioner – Comparative details had just been forwarded to BUIDCO (Nodal Executing Agency) – It is at this stage that this vital shortcoming in tender uploaded by Nagar Parishad was discovered – When decision making process had not attained finality and there was no acceptance of bid submitted by petitioner, petitioner cannot claim that any notice was required to be issued to him – Cancellation of tender process was in larger public interest and to ensure proper execution of work – All tenderers were uniformally affected by cancellation – Petitioner at best had right to be considered in tender process without any discrimination – There is also no specific mala fide alleged against any officials nor is it a case where action of cancelling tender has been taken to benefit any particular individual – Vague allegation of malafide has been stated in writ petition without any details – Allegations are clearly non-est and unsustainable – Cancellation of tender process arising out of Tender Notice requires no interference – Writ petition dismissed. (Paras 20, 22 to 26)
JUDGMENT:
1. In view of nationwide Lockdown on account of Covid-19 global pandemic the matter was mentioned seeking permission to file this writ petition and for its listing as an urgent matter for consideration through video conference. Upon due consideration the Hon’ble Chief Justice accepted the motion for urgent listing. The matter has accordingly been placed today for consideration through video conference.
2. The learned counsels are appearing and making submissions from their residence. The Court Master and Secretary are also part of this virtual court proceedings from their homes, all with the aid of audio visual technology.
3. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ravindra Priyadarshi, the learned counsel appearing for Bihar Urban Infrastructural Development Corporation Ltd. (in short, BUIDCO) as also Mr. Prashant Snha, learned Counsel appearing for the Nagar Parishad, Nawada.
4. The writ petition has been placed for consideration along with a report showing many defects. The defects are such which are other than exemption provided currently for filing cases. Even copy of the ‘Adhaar Card’ in proof of petitioner’s identity has not been submitted.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he will be submitting photo copy of the ‘Adhaar Card’ of the petitioner to remove defect No. 67 pointed out by the Stamp Reporter.
6. Matter may be listed along with the other defects for consideration at 2.15 PM today itself.
7. Let the petitioner’s counsel take aforesaid steps in the meanwhile.
8. Later On Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel representing respondent No. 1 (BUIDCO) and the learned Counsel representing the Nagar Parishad, Nawada.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has transmitted photo copy of the 'Adhar Card' as I/d proof of the petitioner to make good defect No. 67 pointed out in the stamp report. In respect of other defects, he has submitted an undertaking that the same shall be cured as and when he is called upon to do so.
10. The case of the petitioner, as per averments made in the writ petition, is that an advertisement was brought out by Nagar Parishad, Nawada on 23.3.2020. The same was inviting tender bids for the purpose of cleaning of drains. Altogether six drains were to be cleaned for which six different works have been tabulated in the Tender Notice (Annexure 1). The Tender Notice was extended by a corrigendum dated 11.4.2020 and thereafter by a second corrigendum dated 21.4.2020. The petitioner has applied in response to the tender notice for the six works of cleaning drains.
11. In the process of evaluation of bids some irregularities were detected when comparative details were forwarded by the Nagar Parishad to the office of the Executive Engineer, BUIDCO under communication dated 3.5.2020. It would be relevant to mention here that in respect of such infrastructural projects of the Government of Bihar, BUIDCO is the Nodal Executing Agency.
12. The office of the Executive Engineer, BUIDCO under communication dated 11.5.2020 has written to the Nagar Parishad highlighting the irregularities in the comparative details sent upon evaluation of the tender bids, under communication dated 03.05.2020. Clause 3 ¼M+½ of the comparative details is said to have been violated by he Nagar Parishad.
13. Respondent No. 2 therefore directed that the tender process based on tender notice dated 23.2.2020 bearing No. 08/2019-20 be cancelled and fresh tender be notified for the works in question.
14. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer that the communication of the respondent No. 2 cancelling the earlier tender process, which is dated 11.5.2020, and the consequent action thereto including new Tender Notice (Annexure 5) dated 19.5.2020 be quashed.
15. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he has submitted his bids as per tender notice and cancellation of the same in such an arbitrary manner without informing him as to what was the violation
