Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 505 (JHR)

Sanjay Kumar Jalan v. State of Jharkhand

2017-03-10

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2017
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner aggrieved by Clause-2 of the terms and conditions of Short Term Tender Notice dated 21.02.2017 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad for engagement of Contractor under Door Step Delivery Scheme for the purpose of delivery of foodgrains items to PDS Dealers. 3. Clause-2 of the NIT at Annexure-6 requires interested bidders to state on affidavit i.e. that he has not been convicted by a Court of law/he is not an accused in a criminal case relating to Government Food Supply/he has not been blacklisted. 4. Petitioner admittedly is an accused in Jharia P. S. Case No. 223 of 2016 in which he has also been charge-sheeted under Section 406/420 of the Indian Penal Court and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Annexure-2 is the F.I.R. Petitioner has been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in A. B. A. No. 4360 of 2016 vide order dated 26.10.2016 in the instant FIR. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on mere filing of an FIR with vague allegation and as such being named therein or on filing of charge-sheet itself, before framing of charge after scrutiny of the material obtained during investigation by a judicial trained mind, mere accusation should not be taken as a bar for participation in the tender process. If that approach is adopted without due scrutiny of the allegation of the available material collected by Investigating Agency by Tender Evaluation Committee, it would amount to denying fair procedure in the matter of exercise of right to carry on business or occupation under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Therefore petitioner has sought declaration that the condition at Clause-2 of the NIT is unconstitutional. Petitioner has sought direction for its bid to be accepted subject to evaluation of competitive bid thereafter. 6. Counsel for the respondent-State submits that contention of the petitioner is legally untenable. They are far fetched also. FIR has been registered by the Marketing Officer, Official of the Supply Department of the State Government. The petitioner cannot allege motivated implication, in such circumstances, where there are at least seven named and several unnamed accused. FIR has been duly investigated leading to submission of the charge-sheet also. The Terms and Conditions of the NIT are within the domain of the employer. The petitioner cannot allege motivated implication, in such circumstances, where there are at least seven named and several unnamed accused. FIR has been duly investigated leading to submission of the charge-sheet also. The Terms and Conditions of the NIT are within the domain of the employer. No such irrationality has been shown to warrant interference by this Court in judicial review. Therefore, petitioner cannot seek declaration as prayed for. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties in the background facts noted hereinabove. Petitioner essentially seeks interference of this court in the Terms and Conditions laid down in NIT where scope of judicial review is quite limited. The employer has freedom to lay down terms and conditions, which have a rational nexus with the ultimate object to allot the work to the eligible and bonafide tenderer whose credentials are clean. The facts of the instant case do also show that the implication of the petitioner is by an official of the Supply Department itself of the State Government i.e. Marketing Officer. The correctness of the allegations made cannot be the subject matter of scrutiny in civil proceedings like this. Otherwise also the freedom guaranteed under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India are subject to reasonable restrictions as enumerated under Article 19(2) to (6) of the Constitution of India. 8. On overall consideration of all these facts and legal principles, this Court is not convinced that interference is justified in the enumerated terms and conditions of the NIT under challenge. Therefore, the challenge has to fail. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.