ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR)

Date : 25-06-2024 We have heard Dr. Mayanand Jha, learned senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Senior Advocate for the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BSFC’). Learned Advocates for the State as well as private respondent nos. 8 and 9 are also present.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the District Transport Committee, Sitamarhi, as contained in Memo no. 1858 dated 23.09.2023 (Annexure-P/3) whereby his technical bid for selection and empanelment as Transportation and Handling Agent for transportation of food-grains has been rejected. The petitioner also sought quashing of E-mail communication dated 16.01.2024 (Annexure-P/5) issued from the portal of Government of Bihar i.e. e-Proc2.0@bihar.gov.in, whereby the petitioner is intimated that he has been disqualified during the evaluation of Cover-1 (Technical Bid) due to non- fulfillment of the requirement of Clause 8(i) and 8(xi) of the Notice Inviting Tender (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NIT’).

3. The petitioner being proprietor of the firm and a registered Class-I Contractor under the Government of Bihar has submitted his tender in response to NIT No. 1431 (Main) for selection and empanelment of Transportation-cum-Handling and Delivery Contractors. The last date for submission/uploading of offer/bid was scheduled up to 18.08.2023 and the date of opening of the Technical Bid was scheduled to 28.08.2023. The opening date of Financial Bid was fixed on 04.09.2023. The copy of the NIT has been produced as Annexure-P/1.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner being eligible offered tender within the stipulated period with all the required and supporting documents, but the same has been rejected on hyper technical grounds. In terms of the NIT, the petitioner submitted the copies of the Income Tax Return for the last three assessment years, as there was no stipulation in the NIT requiring the petitioner to submit Income Tax Return for the current financial year 2023-24. Moreover, at the time of submission of the tender, the financial year was not over and the Firm was yet to file the return after finalization of the account; it was subsequently filed within the time.

5. Learned Senior Advocate further contended that similarly in terms of the NIT, the petitioner also submitted the copy of the Computer Generated Bank Statement downloaded from the Internet Banking System from his HDFC Bank Account. Referring thereto, he further contended that in the bottom of the statement, there is a categorical assertion that since it was computer generated statement, it did not require signature. The petitioner was under bana fide belief that such bank statement is admissible for all practical purposes, hence there was no requirement of the signature of the Branch Manager of the Bank concerned. It is also the contention of the petitioner that he had put his signature on all the relevant pages appended to the NIT-SBD documents. The photograph and the other documents were also self attested. He also submitted the details of trucks owned by him and the trucks on lease.

6. Adverting to the aforenoted contention, the learned Senior Advocate further argued that despite fulfilling all the requirement, as contemplated in the NIT, the Technical Bid Committee has rejected his tender on a trivial or virtually on hyper technical grounds.

7. The impugned decision of the District Transport Committee, as contained in Annexure-P/3 refers the grounds for rejection: Firstly, the tenderer has not filled up the tender form completely and on the place of signature of tenderer and the name of the tenderer, the tenderer has neither put his signature nor written his name. The photo affixed by the tenderer has not been self-attested. Secondly; the residential certificate submitted by the tenderer has not been self-attested, w