SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Pat) 462

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.
M/s Cobra Industrial Security Forces (I) Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Director, Department of Education and ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6237 of 2020
Decided On : 20-10-2020

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Singh, Adv. Mr.Nirbhay Prashant, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr.Lalit Kishore, Sr.Adv. Mr. Gyan Shankar, Adv. Mr. Iqbal Asif Niazi, AC to GP-5
For the Intervenor : Mr. Raju Giri, Adv.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Judicial Review - Tender process - Petitioner challenged the issuance of new tenders for security and housekeeping services by the respondent without canceling the earlier ones, where he was claimed to be the lowest bidder. - Court found that the petitioner was blacklisted prior to the issuance of new tenders and had waived any objections by participating in subsequent tenders, thus lacking standing to challenge. - The decision of the respondents to proceed with a fresh tender process was not arbitrary nor influenced by mala fides, and the court declined jurisdiction for interference. (Paras 12, 34, 50)

(B) Judicial review principles - The court reiterated that the State has discretion in tender matters and not bound to accept the lowest bid, nor required to provide reasons for cancellation unless tainted by mala fides or unreasonableness. Public interest dictates intervention only in compelling circumstances. (Paras 22, 50)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a security agency, was declared L1 in a tender for security services, but another bidder was awarded the contract. Following a sequence of tender cancellations, the petitioner alleged arbitrary actions and sought to quash fresh tenders issued during a lockdown.

Findings of Court:
The tender process was upheld, and the petitioner was found to have concealed relevant facts regarding his blacklisting.

Issues: Whether the petitioner had standing to challenge the tender process and if the actions of the respondents were arbitrary or mala fide.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner’s blacklisting and participation in subsequent tenders negated any challenge to the tender process, establishing that procedural irregularities alone did not warrant judicial review in favor of the petitioner.

Result: Writ application dismissed; costs imposed.

Table of Content
1. details of tender process and petitioner involvement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. arguments of parties regarding the tender process. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
3. court's decision based on arguments and legal precedents. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)

JUDGMENT :

Petitioner in the present case has moved this court for the reliefs mentioned in paragraph 1 of the writ application which reads as under:

    “a. For quashing the entire tender process with respect to the notice Inviting Tender No.PR-115/2020 and the Notice Inviting Tender No.PR-116/2020 (Annexure-6 Series) floated by the Respondent No.2 i.e. Bihar School Examination Board, on 29.04.2020, inviting tender for “providing Security Services to Bihar School Examination Board, Patna” and for “providing Housekeeping Services to Bihar School Examination Board, Patna”, respectively as both the tenders has been floated by the Respondent no.2 without cancelling the earlier tenders notice No.PR490/2019 (Annexure-1), which was floated in the month of December 2019 for similar work i.e. “for Providing Housekeeping, security personnel and potable water supply with modern equipment and best quality manpower for building and campus at the office of Bihar State Examination Board (hereinafter referred as “BSEB”) and 10 regional office of BSEB, wherein the petitioner was declared as L1, but in spite of several request made by the petitioner, the agreement was not executed nor the tender process was cancelled nor any action was taken by the respondent no.2.

    Further, even without cancelling the aforesaid Tender notice No. PR 490/2019 (Annexure-1), again similar tenders being Tender No. PR-104/2020 (Annexure-4) for providing Housekeeping Services and Tender No.105/2020 (Annexure-5) for providing Security Services were floated by the Respondent BSEB on 16.03.2020 in which the petitioner also participated, but without cancelling the same, the Respondent BSEB once again on 29.04.2020 issued fresh Tenders i.e. Notice Inviting Tender No.PR-115/2020 and the Notice Inviting Tender No.PR-116/2020 (Annexure-6 series) and thereafter in a quite illegal, arbitrary and malafide manner cancelled the aforesaid Tender Notice No.PR 490/2019 (Annexure-1) issued in the month of December, 2019, Tender No.PR-104/2020 (Annexure-4) and Tender No.105/2020 (Annexure5) floated on 19.03.2020 were cancelled on 29.05.2020 (Annexure-7 series) i.e. after floating of tender dated 29.04.2020.

    b. For a direction upon the concerned Respondent to immediately quash the intimation given by the respondent no.2 through e-mail on 29.05.2020 (Annexure-7 series) whereby and where under it was informed that the Tender Notice No.PR 490/2019 (Annexure-1) issued in the month of December, 2019 Tender No. PR-104/2020 (Annexure-4) and Tender No.105/2020 (Annexure-5) floated on 16.03.2020 has been cancelled, even without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

    c. For any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner may be deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble Court under the facts and circumstances of this case.”

Case of the petitioner

2. It is the case of the petitioner that being one of the premier security agency engaged in providing security service and other allied services to various organizations of the central government, state government, public sector undertakings and private organizations in various States of the country, it is also engaged in providing security services to the respondent Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the “BSEB”). The petitioner was able to get the tender for security services floated by the BSEB in the year 2017, it was for a period of three years and as the said period was going to expire the BSEB floated a similar e-tender on 21.12.2019.

3. The e-tender bearing no. PR-490/2019 (Annexure ‘

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top