Back
2023 Supreme(Pat) 1324
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
P.B. BAJANTHRI, RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA, JJ.
M/s Nonpareil Constructions LLP, through its Designated Partner-Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Building Constructions Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7081 of 2023
Decided On : 06-11-2023
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ankur Apurv Singh.
For the Respondent: Mr. P.K. Shahi, AG.
IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that transparency and adherence to procedural fairness are essential in public tender processes, and failure to comply can result in legal consequences for the responsible authorities.
Headnote:
CERTIORARI - TENDER DISPUTE - N/A - The court addressed the arbitrary discharge of a tender and the lack of transparency in the technical bid evaluation process. It emphasized the necessity for clear guidelines and adherence to established procedures in tender evaluations, highlighting the importance of fair competition and the right to information for all bidders. The court's decision was influenced by the failure of the respondents to provide adequate information regarding the evaluation process and the subsequent allotment of work to a third party without proper disclosure.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the arbitrary discharge of a tender and related proceedings, claiming violations in the evaluation process and lack of transparency from the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents failed to adhere to proper procedures during the technical bid evaluation and did not disclose critical information regarding the allotment of work to another bidder, Manish Kumar. The court noted potential collusion and the lack of clean hands from the respondents.
Issues: Whether the tender process was conducted fairly and transparently, and whether the petitioner was entitled to relief against the arbitrary actions of the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lack of transparency and adherence to established procedures in the tender evaluation process undermined the fairness of the bidding process, warranting a cost award to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition, awarding costs of Rs. 1,00,000 to the petitioner to be paid by the official respondents within eight weeks.
JUDGMENT :
P.B. Bajanthri, J.
In the instant petition the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
(a) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the arbitrary discharge of tender vide letter no.-Building/Chief Engineer(W) Planning Department-1-52/ 2022/ 732(P), Patna, dt.-19/04/2023 in connection with E-NIT No.-01/Patliputra Building Division/22-23 which is having its PR Number as 11515 (Building) 202223 which was published in Dainik Jagran and Hindustan News Paper dt.-07/12/2022 by the respondents.
(b) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the effect of last Corrigendum issued vide PR No.-1643 (BCD) 2022-23.
(c) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the ENIT No.-01/Patliputra Building Division/22-23 which is having its PR Number as-11515 (Building) 2022-23 which was published in Dainik Jagran and Hindustan News Paper dt.-07/12/2022 by the respondents.
(d) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the effect or any further proceedings initiated or pending with respect to the E-NIT No. 01/Patliputra Building Division/22-23 which is having its PR Number as 11515 (Building) 202223 dated 07.12.2022 as clause 04 of the said NIT is violated itself by the respondent authorities.
(e) For issuance of a writ in the nature mandamus for directing the respondent authorities to not to further initiate any proceeding with respect to the same tender proceeding till the disposal of this suit.
(f) For issuance of a writ in the nature mandamus for directing the respondent authorities to not to further initiate/float any fresh tender with respect to the same work which is pending before this Hon'ble Court.
(g) For issuance of a writ in the nature mandamus for directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner to participate in the Financial Bid and also participate in the lottery as well.
(h) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondent no. 07 to initiate enquiry against the arbitrary and unlawful discharge of tender by the respondent no. 3, 4, 5 and 6;
(i) For any other relief(s) which the petitioner is deemed to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of this case.
2. At the time of admission of the present matter interim order was not granted on account of the fact that public interest would suffer. Respondents have filed counter affidavit on 10.07.2023. As on 10.07.2023, certain developments has taken place to the extent that technical bid has attained finality and agreement was entered by the official respondents with one Manish Kumar and the same has not been highlighted in the counter counter affidavit whether it is a bonafide mistake or the very object of suppressing the material is not forthcoming.
3. Coming to the merits of the case, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order/decision on the score that there is no provision for award of marks/points at the time of technical evaluation. In this regard, we have apprised the State-Respondents counsel time and again, even though they have filed two supplementary counter affidavits. However, they have not apprise this Court with any material information to the extent that at the time of technical bid evaluation the concerned authorities were required to adhere to the principle of award of marks/points to various issues before finalizing the technical bid evaluation. To that effect there are no material or information or instruction given to the respective bidders. On the other hand, they have taken such information from the internal communication of the Chief Engineer. We find, that any material taken behind the back of the petitioner and other bidders in so far as adoption of certain procedure in so far as evaluation of technical bid. That apart the official respondents have not approached this Court with a clean hands in not giving factual aspects of the matter as on the date
