Back
2024 Supreme(Jhk) 219
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
Shaligram Singh, a proprietorship firm through its proprietor, Shaligram Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 6196 of 2023
Decided on : 03-04-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Dr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Mohan Dubey, Mr. Shrestha Gautam, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that compliance with the specific eligibility criteria outlined in the Standard Bidding Document is essential for a bid to be considered responsive, and that judicial review of tender decisions is limited to cases of clear arbitrariness or mala fides.
Headnote:
[TENDER DISPUTE] - [DEPARTMENTAL TENDER COMMITTEE DECISION] - [CLAUSE 4.3 (h), CLAUSE 4.5 B (c), CLAUSE 16.2, CLAUSE 16.3] - [The court examined the eligibility criteria set forth in the Standard Bidding Document, particularly focusing on Clauses 4.3 (h), 4.5 B (c), 16.2, and 16.3. It interpreted these clauses to determine the compliance of the petitioner’s bid. The court concluded that the petitioner failed to meet the necessary requirements, leading to its disqualification. The decision-making process of the Departmental Tender Committee was upheld as fair and within the bounds of the law.]
JUDGMENT :
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.
Heard Dr. Ashok Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mohan Dubey, learned A.C. to A.G. for the respondent-State and Mr. Shrestha Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 6.
2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
i. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s), or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the proceedings of the Departmental Tender Committee of Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand issued vide letter no. S.S.-P.N.V./07-N.-74/2023 dated 12.10.2023 whereby and whereunder the petitioner firm has been held to be ineligible under clause nos. 16.2 and 4.5 B (c) of Standard Bidding Document (SBD) and thus disqualified for opening of its Financial Bid for the tender/work in question.
ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s), or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the letter no. S.S.-PNV/07-Nivida-74/2003-4775(s) W.E. dated 12.10.2023 whereby and whereunder the Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, i.e. Respondent no. 3 took a decision to open the financial bids of Daroga Pradhan, Dhanbad and Preeti Enterprises, Dhanbad i.e. respondent no. 6 on 13.10.2023 at 3.30 PM holding these firms only to be substantially responsive.
iii. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s), or a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the concerned respondent authorities to open the financial bid of the petitioner firm and consider its case for award of the tendered work on the basis of comparative statement to be prepared after opening of the financial bid of the petitioner firm when it is found to be L1 (lowest) bidder.
iv. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s), or a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent authorities not to enter into an agreement with the respondent no. 6 and consequently to issue a work order in favour of respondent no. 6 for execution of the tendered work under reference.
v. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s), or a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent authorities not to take any further step towards the execution of the tendered work unless and until the financial bid of the petitioner firm is opened and a fresh decision is taken on the basis of the comparative statement to be prepared thereafter.
vi. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s), or a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent no. 6 not to take any step towards the execution of the tendered work till the financial bid of the petitioner firm has been opened and a fresh decision is taken on the basis of the financial bid submitted by the petitioner firm.
vii. To stay the operation, implementation and execution of the above mentioned decisions of the Departmental Tender Committee taken on 12.10.2023 as well as a stay on any further action pursuant to the opening of (two) 2 financial bids on 13.10.2023 at 3.30 PM declaring respondent no. 6 to be the lowest bidder (L1) under this N.I.T.
And/Or
viii. For issuance of any other appropriate Writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case.
3. By virtue of an amendment application preferred by the petitioner through I.A. No. 2065 of 2024 having been allowed by this Court the petitioner has also challenged the corrigendum issued vide Memo No. 4935(s) dated 25.10.2023 by the Engineer-in-Chief Road Construction Department as well as the proceeding of the Departmental Tender Committee held on 25.10.2023.
4. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is a proprietor firm registered as a Class-1 contractor in the State of Jharkhand through Contractor Shaligram Singh vide letter no.
