M/S Singhania Enterprises, vs State Of Chhattisgarh

We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate General.

The Petitioner submitted its tender in response to a notice inviting tender floated by the State for construction of transit hostel building and staff

quarters for a particular purpose in village Nawagaon, Naya Raipur. The terms of Annexure P/2, detailed notice inviting tender required, among other

things, in clause 3.2.1 thereof, that the amount of earnest money shall be accepted only in the shape of bank drafts or any other interest bearing

shapes mentioned in the W.D. Manual Para 2.079 in favour of the Executive Engineer of the concerned division (emphasis supplied). Such banking

document was to be submitted manually alongwith the requisite materials and affidavit.

The Petitioner obtained a Fixed Deposit from its Banker and the said Banker issued confirmation of deposit which is Annexure P/3. It is a printout

document which shows that a particular amount is deposited in the particular account number of the Petitioner. After the said printout document was

taken, it is presented with hand written entry therein as ""EE PWD Division No. 1, Raipur-A/C"" . Whether that writing in pen is by the Banker is itself

not clear. We say so because that entry in manuscript is not initialed or signed. That entry does not bear any date. It is not within our requirement or

domain now to decide whether it is an interpolation which was done by the Banker, or duly authorised by the Banker. Considering that document, the

Respondents rejected the tender of the Petitioner at the technical qualification stage. This is under challenge.

The learned counsel for the Petitioner has made copious reference to different materials on record and communications by the Banker to the

Government officials as well. Those materials tend to indicate that the Government officials had even made efforts to obtain requisite clarifications.

But, the unfortunate fact of the matter remains that the different communications in manuscript (Hindi) as well as typed written in English or through

the e-mail conveyed different meanings as regards that deposit. One of those materials would tend to indicate that the deposit is in the name of the

Petitioner; while another would indicate that it is a deposit in the name of the Petitioner, marked in favour of the Executive Engineer; yet another

indicates that the deposit is in the Executive Engineer's name, referable to the account of the Petitioner. We are amused with the situation that we

have noted. Banking sector is one of the crucial sectors of the Nation. Certainty is the necessary concomitant of credibility. Financial institution's

credibility stands in performance which would reflect clarity and consistency in transactional details. We cannot, but observe that we have come

across at least few cases by now where offers by tenderers have not crossed the pre-qualification bid or the technical bid stage merely on grounds

referable to the banking documents. This may be a financially non-viable situation for the business enterprises like the Petitioner. But, of more

importance is the fact that in the sector of banking which is regulated, controlled and operated through statutory provisions in India, such careless

exercise have to be brought to 'nil' status or at least, 'minimum' status. Neglect, negligence etc. are not matters which can be tolerated in banking

sector. Dealing with the disciplinary matters in banking sector, the superior Courts have time and again laid down the requirement for every banking

servant to be alert to the fact that they are dealing with public funds as well. We say all this in the context of the fact that we have before us, the

Petitioner who cannot, but be a mute victim of a situation which is not attributable to its conduct or omission.

However, on the basis of materials on record, we cannot find our way to hold that the rejection of the technical bid of the Petitioner calls for

inference in exercise of authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India even though it is also the submission on behalf of the Petitioner that

now the financial bid having also been opened, it could be seen that the Petitioner had quoted the lowest.

In the result, this writ petition fails and is hence dismissed.