Shivam Planners and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Jharkhand and Others

Heard counsel on both sides.

The petitioner in W.P. (C) No, 2899 of 2003 is the appellant. Pursuant to a notice dated 25.2.2003. inviting tenders, the petitioner-appellant submitted his tender. It is seen that the appellant was the sole tenderer. This became clear when the technical bid submitted by the appellant was opened on 13.3.2003. Thereafter, according to the appellant, his financial bid was also opened on 21.5.2003. Meanwhile, the Chief Engineer took a decision to cancel the particular notice inviting tenders on the ground that there was only a solitary bidder and there was no adequate competition. Thus a fresh notice Inviting tenders was published. At this stage the appellant filed the writ petition challenging the action of the respondents and claiming that its bid should have been accepted and the contract should have been awarded to it. On behalf of the State, it was submitted that as per the Bihar Finance Rules and as per the circular issued by the Government, when there was only a single bidder in response to a notice inviting tender, as a matter of policy, the notice inviting that tender had to be cancelled and a fresh tender had to be floated. There was nothing malafide in not proceeding further and in not accepting the tender of the appellant. The appellant had no right as such to have the work given to him. Hence, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.

The learned Single Judge took the view that the cancellation was justified, in view of the Circular issued by the Government and as per the Bihar Finance Rules. The learned Judge also stated that the cancellation was effected before the opening of the financial bid and that the financial bid of the appellant could not have been opened. The learned Judge hence dismissed the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned Single Judge was not correct in thinking that the financial bid of the appellant was not opened It was, as a matter of fact, opened on 21.5.2003 and the cancellation of the notice, inviting tenders, took place only on 12.6.2003. Counsel also argued that the decision communicated on 12.6.2003 was issued even before the formal decision was taken to cancel the tender on 21.6.2003. He also relied on Annexure-7 to the writ petition to point out that in the case of another tender, where there was only a single bidder, the State has accepted that bid and had awarded the work. The Circular issued by the Government and the Bihar Finance Rules, which were being followed in the State of Bihar, were not followed in the State of Jharkhand and they need not be followed.

It cannot be said that any right has accrued to the appellant merely on the basis that it had submitted the tender or even on the basis that it was the lowest tenderer. The very idea of floating a tender is to invite competition and in a case inviting tenders for a substantial work where there was only one tenderer, it might be more prudent to cancel the tendering process and to float a fresh tender. The Circular in that behalf issued by the State Government was for the reason that attempts were being made some times to keep the bidders away so that the work could be cornered. That is a reality that cannot be wished away. In this situation, when the authority took a decision to cancel the tender in view of the fact that the appellant was the only bidder, it cannot be said that there is any malafides or want to bonafides in such a decision. The appellant has not pleaded or established any facts which would spell in the realm of malafide exercise of power by the Chief Engineer. The plea that in the case of another work in a backward district, the same norm was not adhered to, cannot be a ground for holding that even if there was only one bidder, the bid should be accepted.

On the whole, we cannot say that the learned Single Judge was wrong in not interfering in the writ petition. Even if the case of the appellant that the financial bid was opened, as a matter of fact, that too by itself does not advance the case of the ap pellant. Since the appellant has no legal or enforceable right to claim the award of the work in such a situation, we are satisfied that no interference is called for. We dis miss the appeal.