ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing respondent-authorities to open the petitioner’s financial rate bid relating to tender work for installation of Iron Removal Plant System in Primary/Middle Schools in Katihar and Purnea districts pursuant to Tender notifications no. 05/2010-11 and 06/2010-11, respectively issued by the Executive Engineer, Public Health Division of the districts and also for directing the Vigilance Department (Engineer-in-Chief Technical Vigilance Cell) to enquire into the entire process of tender, which, according to the petitioner, was manipulated by the Executive Engineer in connivance with the contractors concerned. 2. The claim of the petitioner was that pursuant to the aforesaid notifications, it purchased Bill of Quantity (BOQ) on 10.01.2011 and submitted technical bid and financial bid for both the places along with the required papers in the office of the Regional Chief Engineer and the technical bid was opened on 11.01.2011, but the petitioner’s bid was opened on 15.01.2011 and its financial bid was not opened although it fulfilled all the terms. It was also stated that the petitioner made complaint on 02.02.2011 and filed another representation on 14.02.2011 before the Regional Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department (hereinafter referred to as `the P.H.E.D’ for the sake of brevity), Bhagalpur and the Chief Engineer, P.H.E.D., Purnea, whereafter the Chief Engineer, P.H.E.D., Purnea ordered for an enquiry and, accordingly, the Superintending Engineer, P.H.E.D, Purnea Circle, Purnea submitted his enquiry report on 04.05.2011 stating that it was only the financial bid of the petitioner, which should have been opened as it fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the tender, whereas, all other tenderers were not qualified in their technical bids and hence their financial bids should not have been opened. The reason for rejection of the petitioner’s bid was that it did not submit three documents, namely, (i) SL No.9 details of any technical personnel permanently employed by the contractors; (ii) SL No. 10 Character Certificate and (iii) Labour Licence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that the technical bids of other contractors were opened on 11.01.2011, whereas, technical bid of the petitioner was opened on 15.01.2011, which clearly proved that the petitioner was targetted to be ousted from the tender bid. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that the technical bids of other contractors were opened on 11.01.2011, whereas, technical bid of the petitioner was opened on 15.01.2011, which clearly proved that the petitioner was targetted to be ousted from the tender bid. He also stated that in comparative statements of technical bid of Purnea Division name of contractor had been shown as G.L.R. Traders, whereas, in comparative statements of technical bid of Katihar Division, name of contractor has been shown as Pankaj Kumar Jha (Proprietor of G.L.R. Traders). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also claimed that G.L.R. Traders is a firm and Pankaj Kumar Jha is its Proprietor and the said firm was firstly registered on 29.08.2008 under the PHED, Bihar from 02.09.2008 to 01.09.2011, whereafter on 28.05.2009 the PHED issued a notification that it has also accepted the Bihar Contractor Registration Rules 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘2007 Rules’ for the sake of brevity), which is enforced in RCD with effect from 07.05.2007. As per 2007 Rules, every contractor has to get his licence renewed within six months. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following grounds :- (a) In pursuance of notification dated 28.05.2009 petitioner also applied through its proprietor Pankaj Kumar Jha (Annexure 14 series) of the second supplementary affidavit with an affidavit (at page 119) that Pankaj Kumar Jha is the proprietor of G.L.R. Traders as in the new format for application for renewal (Annexure K) of Bihar Contract Rules 2007 there was no column to furnish the name of firm whereas in old Rule 1996, there was separate column to furnish details in case any firm is registered. It has also deposited Rs.1,00,000/- as per rule name of G.L.R. Traders and a receipt of the same was given to the petitioner (Annexure 10 at page 344) and thereafter petitioner’s registration was renewed as its registration 47/2010. The fault if any lies with the Department in the licence, name of petitioner has not been mentioned and only name of proprietor has been mentioned on the basis of format used by the Department. The fault if any lies with the Department in the licence, name of petitioner has not been mentioned and only name of proprietor has been mentioned on the basis of format used by the Department. There is no anomaly in this because the petitioner has been regularly applying for and getting contracts by the same department up till now by the several direction of State authorities (Annexure 9 series at page 302 to 310) including respondents no.6 and 7 and they never raised question for the said defects as they were aware that it happened on account of issuance of format `K’ as per Bihar Contract Rules 2007. (b) So far as rejection on the ground for not submitting particulars regarding Labour licence and Character certificate is concerned, it is humbly submitted that the Superintending Engineer has enquired into the same and found that respondents no.6 and 7 have wrongly rejected the technical bid of the petitioner on the ground of non-submission of the aforesaid documents as these particulars are not required to be submitted by the firm. Since petitioner is a firm so its rate bid should have been opened ignoring the aforesaid particulars as the petitioner having more experience of the works than all other bidders more so other bidders had not required experience of the work contract in question. (c) So far as contention of respondent no.7 (in para 22 at page 167) that the contractor of Katihar division has already completed work and payment of Rs.37,63,564/- and Rs.37,72,358/- have been made to Sri B. K. Singh and Rana Singh, it is humbly submitted that it requires enquiries by the high officer like Engineer in Chief of the department or Vigilance Department as to how the Superintending Engineer Sri Lal Bahadur Singh and respondent no.7 were involved in granting contract work and making payment to the contractor Sri B. K. Singh and Rana Singh in such a short period of hardly a month work has been completed and payment has been made. (d) So far as contention of the private respondent Pankaj Kumar Singh that some of the contracts have been granted, which has not been enquired into by the Superintending Engineer, is concerned, it is humbly submitted that the enquiry has been made by the Superintending Engineer, Purnea in pursuance of complaint made by the petitioner and in enquiry it has been proved that illegality has been committed by the Executive Engineer, Purnea in order to open rate bid of the contract in Purnea Division and Katihar Division, so whole contract is doubtful and it requires to be examined by the high level committee because in comparative statement in two contracts the bids of Pankaj Kumar Singh was defective. In ground of rejection/acceptance in technical bid is not mentioned in comparative statement. (e) So far letter of Chief Engineer, PHED, Purnea is concerned, it is humbly submitted that the Chief Engineer without examining the records and documents of the matter or hearing the petitioner in collusion with the private respondents issued such order only to facilitate the interest of the private respondents and mislead this Court. (f) The petitioner is firm, thus, it has not fulfilled/obliged by paying illegal money to respondents no.6 and 7, therefore, they manipulated by cutting in Comparative Statement (Page 341) and have not opened the financial bid of the petitioner and opened the financial bids of the persons, who obliged them. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for private respondent no.8 submitted that the petitioner along with respondent no.8 had made bids for Group Ch-3 and Group Ch-4, but the petitioner could not qualify the technical bid round in either of the two groups, which is apparent from the comparative bid sheets of the said two groups, whereafter, it made complaints and the Superintending Engineer, Purnea Circle submitted his report dated 04.05.2011, which is the sheet anchor of the petitioner’s case, but the said report of the Superintending Engineer was overruled by the Chief Engineer vide his letter dated 23.05.2011 and the private respondent no.8 was selected as successful bidder for both the groups. Hence he averred that the technical bid of the petitioner having been found defective lacking the essentially required documents, it was rightly not considered by the authorities concerned and its financial bid was not fit to be opened. 6. Hence he averred that the technical bid of the petitioner having been found defective lacking the essentially required documents, it was rightly not considered by the authorities concerned and its financial bid was not fit to be opened. 6. Learned counsel for respondent no.9 stated that the tender for Katihar Division was invited and after receiving it the same was opened on 10.01.2011, whereafter it was finalized by the Department and allotted to the said respondent for the Katihar Division and an agreement for the same was signed on 19.02.2011 and work order was issued on 25.02.2011. 7. He further stated that as per the terms and conditions of the NIT and the agreement, the work was started quickly, measurement was done and entered into M.B. No. 630, which was submitted on 23.05.2011 and payments were made through different account bills to the said respondent and the fifth account bill was prepared on 24.03.2011. The said facts were not brought on record by the petitioner purposely though the same were well known to it. The petitioner did not even implead respondent no.9 and got an interim order on 20.05.2011 at a much belated stage when the majority of the work had already been completed and payments were, accordingly, made, which fact had also been accepted in the counter affidavit of other respondents. 8. It was also claimed by learned counsel for respondent no.9 that the petitioner was not eligible to participate in the tender as the firm and Sri Pankaj Kumar Jha are two different legal entities, both of them being registered as contractors into different categories and as such documents of one contractor cannot be used for the other. It was also stated that both the firm and Sri Pankaj Kumar Jha used to participate in tender in the names of two legal entities minimizing the scope of open tender, which is against the very norms of the 2007 Rules. He also claimed that the registration of the firm was only up to the maximum limit of Rs. 50 lacs, whereas, the Bihar Contractors Registration/Renewal Rules 2005 has already been repealed by the Bihar Contractors Registration Rule 2007, which was made effective from 07.05.2007 and hence the claim of the petitioner has no leg to stand. 9. Learned counsel for respondent-State of Bihar and its authorities (respondents no. 50 lacs, whereas, the Bihar Contractors Registration/Renewal Rules 2005 has already been repealed by the Bihar Contractors Registration Rule 2007, which was made effective from 07.05.2007 and hence the claim of the petitioner has no leg to stand. 9. Learned counsel for respondent-State of Bihar and its authorities (respondents no. 1 to 7) adopted the arguments of learned counsel for private respondents no. 8 and 9 and supported the steps taken by the authorities concerned, which are under challenge in the instant writ petition. 10. From the averments made by learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the petitioner-firm, namely, M/s G.L.R. Traders and Sri Pankaj Kumar Jha have been separately registered as contractors into two different categories although when Sri Pankaj Kumar Jha was the owner of M/s G.L.R. Traders, it was not legal and proper for him to get any registration done in his independent name also. Furthermore, since the petitioner-firm and Sri Pankaj Kumar Jha were separately registered, they were independent entities and hence the documents of one contractor cannot be legally used for the other contractor. 11. The comparative bid sheets of the tenderers also clearly show that several documents, which were to be submitted by the petitioner along with the tenders, were not deposited by it although they were necessary documents for appreciating the petitioner’s entitlement for such tenders as per the specific requirements mentioned in the NIT. In the said circumstances, the authorities were quite justified in rejecting the tenders filed by the petitioner. 12. From the undisputed facts of the case, it is also apparent that the petitioner-M/s G.L.R. Traders was not a registered contractor under 2007 Rules and as per earlier Rules, it was registered for contracts only up to Rs. 50 lacs, whereas, all the contracts in the present bid process exceeded Rs. 50 lacs. However, Sri Pankaj Kumar Jha was registered contractor under new 2007 Rules, but it was not legal and proper for the petitioner-firm, namely, M/s G.L.R. Traders to use the registration certificate of Sri Pankaj Kumar Jha for the present tender, which was submitted not by Sri Pankaj Kumar Jha rather by M/s G.L.R. Traders and hence it was clearly not permissible. 13. 13. The sheet anchor of the petitioner’s case was the report of the Superintending Engineer dated 04.05.2011, in which it was held that the petitioner fulfilled the terms and conditions of the tender, whereas, the other tenderers were not qualified in the technical bid. But it has been proved by the respondents that the said report of the Superintending Engineer had been overruled by the Chief Engineer vide his letter dated 23.05.2011 and hence no sanctity can be given to the overruled enquiry report of the Superintending Engineer nor the petitioner can take any benefit of the said report. 14. It also transpires from the records that the tender in question was short term tender on ‘turn key basis’ and the tenure of work was merely six months, which is apparent from Annexure 1 attached by the petitioner to the writ petition. The petitioner did not bring the relevant facts on record, which clearly showed that immediately after finalisation of the tender in January, 2011, agreement was signed between the parties and work orders were issued to the private respondents in February, 2011, whereafter they started the work, completed it and submitted their account bills, which have been paid also. These facts have also been supported by the respondents themselves in their counter affidavits filed on their behalf. 15. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.