Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 433 (JHR)

Sanjay Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2013-04-03

JAYA ROY, PRAKASH TATIA

body2013
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner appellant was a bidder for a contract of doorstep delivery of foodgrains for Baghmara godown. The appellant's case was considered by the competent committee and it was found that the appellant was already holding similar license of P.D.S and therefore, he was not eligible candidate. The appellant's candidature was, therefore, rejected. The remaining person was only respondent no.6 and he was awarded the contract. The petitioner appellant challenged the award of the contract to respondent no.6 by filing writ petition being W.P (C) 7055/2012, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge after considering the contention of the petitioner appellant that there was criminal case registered against respondent no.6 under section 341, 323, 504, 379 and 34 I.P.C and learned Single Judge was of the view that the said criminal case did not relate to defalcation or misappropriation of Government foodgrains but were in reletion to other offences and in spite of that, respondent no.6 was eligible candidate. However, the petitioner, who was holding a valid license of P.D.S, against which though he had applied for surrender of the license but that surrender was not accepted, was, therefore, disqualified. 3. Aggrieved against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 5.3.2013, this L.P.A has been preferred. Learned counsel for the petitioner appellant submitted that if the view expressed by the learned Single Judge is accepted and it is held that the petitioner was rightly found to be a disqualified candidate for the contract in question, then in that situation respondent no.6 remained the sole tenderer and bidder for the contract. In the procedure of awarding contract, candidature are considered of the tenderers if there are two or more bidders. It is the rule of procedure that whenever there remains only one bidder, then in that situation the only option left with the authority was to retender the contract. In the order in question in which the petitioner's candidature was rejected itself, two bids were not accepted relating to Tundi and Govindpur godowns solely on the ground that because of disqualification of other tenderer, there remained only one tenderer and therefore, retender was essential. In view of the above reason also, awarding the tender to respondent no.6 was absolutely illegal. 4. In view of the above reason also, awarding the tender to respondent no.6 was absolutely illegal. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent no.6 vehemently submitted that the petitioner was disqualified because of holding a valid license of P.D.S and the same cannot be disputed. It is also submitted that the work in question was of urgent nature and the respondent no.6, who was an eligible candidate and submitted his competitive bid, was, therefore, rightly given the contract in question. 5. Learned counsel for the State tried to support the impugned order for the reasons referred above. 6. We considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. It is true that the petitioner raised the ground before the learned Single Judge that the petitioner was not disqualified as he already applied for surrender of the license of P.D.S and it was not in the hand of the petitioner as to when the authority would accept surrender of P.D.S license and it was argued before the learned Single Judge that the respondent no.6 was disqualified because of pendency of criminal cases. But from the impugned order itself, it is clear that as per the proceudre, whenever one bidder is there, the only option left with the authority was to retender the contract. This procedure was followed for Tundi and Govindpur godowns in the same impugned order and finding only one bidder, it was decided to retender in contrast to the contract in question for Baghmara godown, where after declaring the petitioner disqualified, the contract was given to the remaining sole bidder. 7. Therefore, illegality is apparent on the face of the order itself and contradiction is also apparent in the order. Therefore, the order in question awarding the contract to respondent no.6 cannot be sustained. It may be worthwhile to mention here that petitioner's cause of action accrued, when he himself was declared disqualified for the contract because of the reason that cause of action accrued on account of his own disqualification which rendered respondent no.6 to be the sole bidder. Another relevant fact is that the petitioner already applied for surrendering the P.D.S license and if the contract is retendered, then the petitioner may get the opportunity to bid subject to acceptance of surrender of his P.D.S license. Another relevant fact is that the petitioner already applied for surrendering the P.D.S license and if the contract is retendered, then the petitioner may get the opportunity to bid subject to acceptance of surrender of his P.D.S license. Therefore, in this circumstance also, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order awarding the contract to respondent no.6, Annexure – 5, cannot be sustained and is quashed. This L.P.A is, thus, allowed and the impugned order of learned Single Judge is set aside.