Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1115 (JHR)

Hriday Ranjan Dutta v. State of Jharkhand

2015-09-16

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
Judgment : Per SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. Aggrieved by rejection of his bid, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner claiming himself registered contractor under Building Construction Department, Dumka submitted his bid pursuant to Tender notice dated 17.07.2015 for repairing and maintenance of “B” Block of Collectorate Building, Jamtara. The last date for opening the Tender was 29.07.2015 and the eligible candidates were shortlisted on 31.07.2015. After the meeting of the Tender Committee a final decision to award work under the Tender to respondent no. 7 was taken on 06.08.2015. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have admitted that the bids submitted by the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 was for the same value and both have registration as contractors of the same year still, without disclosing a reason, work in question has been awarded to respondent no. 7. It is contended that decision dated 06.08.2015 awarding work in question to respondent no. 7 does not disclose consideration of the case of the petitioner and therefore, the decision taken by the Superintending Engineer is vitiated in law. It is further contended that in the counter affidavit, the respondents have taken a plea that petitioner failed to submit his PAN Card, TIN and CRN JVAT106 for which the respondents could have issued notice to the petitioner directing him to submit the documents. It is stated that the Income Tax Return and Commercial Tax Clearance Certificate were produced by the petitioner which would disclose PAN number and the fact that the petitioner has been paying tax to the Commercial Taxes Department. 4. Per-contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner does not deny that he failed to submit PAN Card, TIN etc. The plea taken by the petitioner that the authority could have understood that the petitioner is an income tax payee and he has been paying tax to the Commercial Taxes Department and thus, he has a PAN card and he has Commercial Taxes registration is not contemplated under the terms and conditions notified for Tender notice dated 17.07.2015. NIT dated 17.07.2015 does not authorise the authorities to require a tenderer to submit deficit documents subsequently and had this procedure been adopted by the authority, it would have become arbitrary. It is denied that decision taken by the respondent-Superintending Engineer on 06.08.2015 to award work to respondent no. NIT dated 17.07.2015 does not authorise the authorities to require a tenderer to submit deficit documents subsequently and had this procedure been adopted by the authority, it would have become arbitrary. It is denied that decision taken by the respondent-Superintending Engineer on 06.08.2015 to award work to respondent no. 7 is arbitrary. 5. From the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, I find that the bids submitted by the petitioner and respondent no. 7 were for a value 10% less than the BOQ rate. The proceeding dated 31.07.2015 discloses that the case of the petitioner along with respondent no.7 was considered by the Executive Engineer. The Superintending Engineer has also considered the bids submitted by the petitioner and the respondent no.7. However, vide order dated 06.08.2015 the Superintending Engineer took a decision to award the contract to respondent no.7. The decision dated 06.08.2015 of the Superintending Engineer discloses that he decided to award the work in favour of “Nyutam variya evam sthaniya nividakaari”. In view of the aforesaid, the contention that the claim of the petitioner was not considered by the authorities is untenable. It is not in dispute that the bid submitted by the respondent no. 7 was also 10% below BOQ rate and he is also a local contractor. It is also a matter of record that the petitioner as well as respondent no. 7, both were registered as contractor in the year, 2003. The petitioner's claim that registration number of the petitioner is prior to the registration number of respondent no. 7 and therefore, he should have been given priority in award of work has been rejected by the authority by assigning a reason. In the writ petition, the petitioner has neither alleged malafide against an individual inperson nor it has been claimed that the award of Tender in his favour would be in public interest. No material has been produced by the petitioner to establish that award of work in favour of respondent no. 7 would not be in public interest. 6. In a catena of judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the writ court would not interfere with the decision taken by the administrative authorities in award of contract unless, it is found that decision taken is against public interest or it suffers from patent illegality or arbitrariness. 7 would not be in public interest. 6. In a catena of judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the writ court would not interfere with the decision taken by the administrative authorities in award of contract unless, it is found that decision taken is against public interest or it suffers from patent illegality or arbitrariness. In “Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka” (2012) 8 SCC 216 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus : 29(e). “If the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding contract, here again, interference by court is very restrictive since no person can claim a fundamental right to carry on business with the Government.” 7. I find that by awarding work under NIT dated 17.07.2015 to the respondent no. 7, no loss has been caused to the respondent-State. The award of work in favour of respondent no. 7 cannot be said to be against public interest. 8. Considering the above facts, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.