Power of attorney is unilateral under 1882 Act, requiring no donee signature; technical bid rejection for its absence invalid; joint venture bidding clause inapplicable to partnership firms. (24 words)

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, CJ.

1. Heard Shri Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri B.S. Parihar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4.

2. Petitioner is a registered partnership firm comprising of five partners, namely, Shri Khushal Singh Jayara, Shri Manmohan Singh Jayara, Shri Kuldeep Jayara, Shri Kailash Jayara and Shri Deeepak Jayara. On 24.06.2017, a power of attorney was executed in favour of Kuldeep Jayara by other four partners and thereunder authority was given to the donee, i.e., Kuldeep Jayara to participate in any tender matter on behalf of the firm vide Clause 4 of the Power of Attorney. On 02.03.2024 respondent no.2 issued a notice inviting tender and it also includes a work relating to construction of a road under Pradhanmantri Gram Sadak Yojna. The petitioner-firm through Shri Kuldeep Jayara acting for himself and as power of attorney holder of the other four partners submitted a bid on behalf of the firm. The bid of the firm has been rejected in the technical round by stating as follows:

“Power of attorney is submitted without signature of Kuldeep Jayara.”

3. The petitioner firm through its partner Kuldeep Jayara being aggrieved by the rejection of its bid on technical ground has filed the present writ petition for the following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, calling for the original record and pleased to quash the impugned technical bid rejection order dated 07.11.2024 (Annexure-2) passed by the respondent no.3 through its Bid Accepting Authority against the petitioner and declare him as successful bidder in Part-1 Technical bid round in respect to the tender inviting notice (NIT) No. 37/2023-24 dated 02.03.2024 pertains to the work order mentioned at serial no. 98 { MRL- 17---- Delhi Yumnortri Road to Kandari MR (BC with waste plastic) XXIII/2023-24 Batch-1, Package No. – UT-13-10} .

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing and commanding the respondents to the extent that firstly they shall declare the petitioner as successful candidate/tenderer at technical stage-I and include his name in the list of successful bidders at technical State-1 and then proceed with the financial bid proceeding (financial Stage-II) in respect to the tender inviting notice (NIT) No. 37/2023-24 dated 02.03.2024 and thereafter award the work contract in favour of the lowest bidder in respect to the tender inviting notice dated 02.03.2024 pertains to work order mentioned at serial no. 4 pertains to the work order mentioned at serial no. 98 { MRL-17----Delhi Yumunotri Road to Kandari MR (BC with based plastic) , XXIII/2023-24 Batch-1, Package No. – UT-13-10}.”

4. This Court while entertaining the writ petition passed an interim order restraining the respondents from taking any further steps in pursuance of the tender notice. It is admitted to the parties that on account of the interim order, the financial bid has not been opened.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Power of Attorney does not require signature of the donee. Consequently, the rejection of the technical bid on the ground that the Power of Attorney does not bear the signatures of Kuldeep Jayara, the donee, is wholly illegal. In support of the submissions, he has placed reliance on the definition of Power of Attorney in Section 1-A and Section 2 of the Po