The NIT conditions apply specifically to the district situated in the State of Bihar and not outside the State, and any additional ground supplanting the reasons for denial of work order is not permissible in law.

ORDER :

Heard Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh representing Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Bihar, Patna.

2. The present writ application has been filed challenging the letter bearing No. 7673 dated 23.09.2020 (Annexure-P/9) issued by General Manager, Public Distribution, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation to the District Magistrate, Nalanda by which the General Manager has informed the District Magistrate that the petitioner does not fulfill the criteria of eligibility as mentioned in NIT-CUM-SB document inasmuch as the petitioner is working as Transportation-cum-handling Contractor (Main) in the district of Giridih within the jurisdiction of State of Jharkhand.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been selected as Transportation-cum-Handling Contractor (Main) by the Chief District Transport Committee, Nalanda after deciding the technical and financial bid in his favour and by Annexure P-7, a letter was issued to the petitioner for entering into an agreement and for issuance of work order in his favour but Respondent No. 10, (General Manager) has issued a letter to the District Magistrate, Nalanda in relation to Clause 8 (iii) (f) of the NIT stating therein that the petitioner has been working as a Handling Contractor in another district and as such, he could not have participated in the tender process. Learned senior counsel further submits that Annexure-9 has been issued by an authority which has no jurisdiction and after verification and inquiry upon the complaint made against the petitioner, the petitioner has been selected as Handling Contractor and the said tender was decided in his favour, as would be evident from Annexure-P-6 which is the Minutes of meeting of District Transport Committee under the Chairmanship of District Magistrate, Nalanda. Petitioner being aggrieved by the action of respondent authority, particularly, respondent No. 8, (District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Nalanda) of not entering into the agreement and not awarding the work order in his favour.

4. Learned senior counsel referring to Annexure, P-1 which is copy of NIT-cum-SB document dated 15.05.2020 advertised by the District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Nalanda, submits that as per Clause-6 of the said NIT, a bidder may be an individual or proprietor of a company or partnership firm. Furthermore, a bidder participating in a tender for any kind of transportation work (Main & DSD) in a district cannot participate in a tender published under same notification for either kind of transportation work in any district.

5. Learned senior counsel also submits that by the said notification, tender for selection of Transportation-cum-Handling Contractor (Main) has been issued for the district of Nalanda. Referring to Clause-8 (iii), it is next submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as per tender condition an affidavit was required to be filed by the tenderer/bidder stating therein that “She/he/they have neither been selected nor are working in more than one district”. Learned counsel further submits that from perusal of Clause-6 and 8(iii)(f), it would be manifest that the condition of NIT as mentioned therein clearly refers to the district for which NIT/notification was published but, at best, it could be referable to the district situated in the State of Bihar and not any other district situated all over India.

6. Learned counsel further submits that from perusal of format of the affidavit as attached to P-37, it would be evident that Clause-5 indicates the district situated in the State of Bihar and not beyond that. Learned counsel, thus, submits that impugned action of the respondent-authority of denying the work order and execution of agreement with the petitioner is completely mala fide, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law inasmuch as petitioner fulfills all the c