M/s U & M Enterprises vs State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Mr. Ratnaker Bhengra, J.—This writ petition has been preferred for quashing entire tender process in connection with tender no. RDD/SD/DEOGHAR/33/201516 issued for Construction of Bridge over Ajay River between Asanvani and Panduwa Ghat at Sarath Block Deoghar and prayer has also been made that during pendency of present writ application the entire process with finalisation of tender process and issuance of work order be kept in abeyance.

Initially issue of locus has been taken. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he had already uploaded the tender bid on 22.4.2016 and the technical bid was to be opened on 26.4.2016. So in that view he was very much eligible in the process of tender and the results that would follow on the bid. Thereafter, he was blacklisted on 10.5.2016 without providing any opportunity of hearing.

Learned counsel for the State has said that shifting of date of technical bids are sometimes done and even if he had qualified on 26.4.2016 he could still be blacklisted later on. He has further said that the prayer that has been made is in the nature of public interest litigation and it is only to stop some one else from benefiting from the tender process.

After hearing both counsel on the issue of locus, it is decided to hear only the second prayer that during pendency of present writ application the entire process with finalisation of tender process and issuance of work orders be kept in abeyance.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to annexure VI which is sample format for evidence of access to or availability of credit facilities. There is a note which is quoted herein below:

"Note: Certificate should be on the letter head of the bank and in above format exactly. Certificate having any change regarding imposition of terms and conditions will cause the proposal with the bidder participation to be disqualified".

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stressed that the format be in exact manner and also said that the terms should be followed. Further annexure VII was referred which is copy of the bank certificate that has been issued by the State Bank with regard to Vardhan Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. and he demonstrated that it is not parallel to what is demanded in annexure VI. He has said that this term has been violated.

He has also referred to Annexure VIII which is extract of the part of the SBD wherein by Clause 4(h) it is stated that:

h)"Proof of availability of major items of the contractor''s machinery-R. C Book/purchase document if owned by the bidder, or undertaking with the vendor executed in nonjudicial stamp of appropriate value of by Affidavit."

Learned counsel has submitted that Clause 4(h) has not been complied with and he has demonstrated this by annexure IX at page 47 which is a list of tools and plants and said that this should have been on nonjudicial stamp. Learned Counsel has also said that terms of 4(I) of annexure VIII has also not been complied with and for this he has demonstrated that from page 41 to 46 the details regarding personnel should have been on nonjudicial stamp. So he said that this term has also been violated.

On the above two grounds he said that Vardhan Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. should have been disqualified.

Learned counsel for the State has submitted that no arguments have been made that the petitioner himself was wrongly disqualified technically or that the technical disqualification of the petitioner is wrong. He has pointed out Annexure V page 31 and 32 wherein at page 32, Technical Evaluation Bid List, he has been indicated as a technically disqualify. This has not been challenged. He has further said that whether a tender process can be done when the petitioner himself has not challenged his own technical disqualification or on the behest of some one who had admittedly been blacklisted. He has also submitted that no where right of the petitioner has been violated.

Having heard the arguments and the reasoning I am inclined to direct that entire process with finalisation of tender process and issuance of work order in connection with Tender No. RDD/SD/DEOGHAR/33/201516 issued for Construction of Bridge over Ajay River between Asanvani and Panduwa Ghat at Sarath Block Deoghar be kept in abeyance till the next date of hearing in the matter.

Issue notice to respondent nos. 6 and 7 under ordinary process as well as under registered cover with A/D for which requisites etc. must be filed within two weeks.

Put up this case on 22.6.2016.