Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1019 (PAT)

Maa Shakti Engineering Works v. State Of Bihar

2001-11-07

S.K.KATRIAR

body2001
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for Respondents 2 and 3, learned counsel for Respondent no. 4, and learned Standing Counsel no. 2. This writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the letter no. 1848 dated 28.9.2001 (Annexure-1), issued by the respondent-corporation in favour of respondent no. 4, calling him upon to supply specific number of trailers with accessories on the terms and conditions mentioned therein, and for the further relief that the respondent-corporation may be directed by a writ of mandamus to issue similar work order in favour of the petitioner. 2. The respondent-corporation have issued tender notice for supply of trailers with accessories. Five persons had submitted tenders, and the rates submitted by them is to be found in the summary sheet (annexure-2) maintained in the office of the respondent-corporation. According to the petitioner, it appears from a plain reading of the same that rates quoted by the petitioner were lower than the rates quoted by respondent no. 4 notwithstanding which respondent no. 4 has been favoured with the order vide annexure-1. Learned counsel further complains that one of the conditions of tender was that the supply shall have to be completed within two weeks from the date of issuance of supply order which condition has been modified by the work order (annexure-1) and a period of three weeks has been granted to respondent no. 4 to supply the goods. He further submits that the petitioner is duly registered SSI unit in the registers of Bihar Government and is, therefore, not required to deposit earnest money in response to such tender notice as per the rules framed by the State Government in this behalf. 3. Three different learned counsel appearing on behalf of three different sets of respondents submit in one voice that the petitioner did not fulfil the terms and conditions of the tender notice (annexure-3) and was, therefore, excluded from consideration. According to the respondents, the petitioner did not furnish the proof of registration of manufacture, as a SSI unit holding Q mark of the Government of Bihar, nor up-to-date income tax clearance and sales tax clearance certificate. It is further submitted that the petitioner did not deposit the requisite earnest money of 1.5 lakh along with the tender papers. It has lastly been submitted that the respondent-corporation has not a corporate body been impleaded as party-respondent. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner did not deposit the requisite earnest money of 1.5 lakh along with the tender papers. It has lastly been submitted that the respondent-corporation has not a corporate body been impleaded as party-respondent. 4. Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that this writ petition is fit to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondents have rightly invited my attention to the terms and conditions occurring in the tender document, marked as annexure-3 to the writ petition. It is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference; "1. Proof of registration of the manufacturer, a SSI unit holding Q mark of the Government of Bihar. 2. Up-to-date Income tax clearance. 3. Up-to-date sales tax clearance. 4. Earnest money of Rs. 1.5 lakh should accompany the tender in the form of demand draft of any nationalized bank in favour of the Bihar State Scheduled Castes Cooperative Corporation Limited. The earnest money of the unsuccessful tenderes will be refunded. 5. Payment after satisfactory completion of supplies of the accessories within specified time schedule to designated destinations in districts ail over Bihar. No extra charge will be entertained for deliveries in the districts. 6. Supplies to be completed within fifteen days of the order. 7. Documentary evidence of executing similar job(s) in the past to accompany the tender. 8. Manufacturers should quote price inclusive of taxes, if any and no price revision upward will be allowed once the order has been placed for execution. 9. The tender shall accompany schedules of manufacture and of delivery of the accessories to the districts. 10. The sealed coyer containing the tender shall be superscribed in bold letters with "Tender for Manufacture and Supply of Accessories for HMT-3522 Tractors." This has to be read with statements made in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit of Respondents 2 and 3, which is set out for the facility of quick reference : "That with regard to statement made in paragraph no. 10 of the writ petition if is humbly submitted and stated that though the rate proposed by petitioner for only one item, was slightly lower than the rate quoted by the respondent no. 10 of the writ petition if is humbly submitted and stated that though the rate proposed by petitioner for only one item, was slightly lower than the rate quoted by the respondent no. 4 but, since the petitioner filed tender without fulfilling the requisite criteria fixed for participation in bid viz; the petitioner firm has not produced upto date income tax clearance and up to date sales tax clearance and not deposited earnest money of Rs. 1.50 lakhs even at the time of opening of the tender papers and as such his tender papers were not considered by the committee of corporation because the petitioners firm was ineligible for participation in the bid and hence the allegations levelled against this deponent is fully misconceived and is fit to be rejected." The petitioner has not controverted this statement. It is, thus, manifest that the petitioner was disqualified from consideration because of non-submission of the income tax clerance certificate and sales tax clearance certificate. I am for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition, neither taking into account the controversy relating to non-submission of the certificate showing petitioners proof of registration of the manufacturer as a SSI unit holding Q mark of the Government of Bihar nor taking into consideration the issue raised regarding non-deposit of the earnest money, because there is some controversy between the parties on these two aspects of the matter. Non-fulfilment of the aforesaid two conditions stands admitted at the hands of the petitioner and are sufficient to disqualify the petitioner from consideration. Allotment of work to respondent no. 4 cannot, therefore, be faulted, much less at the instance of the petitioner. Law is well settled that a disqualified person has no locus standi to assail the validity of a selection process. 5 In the result, this petition is dismissed.