Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 653 (JHR)

Binoy Chandra Dey v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-03-06

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2019
JUDGMENT Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein notice inviting tender dated 07.01.2019 as contained under Annexure-3 being Bidding Document No. CS/01/2018-19 is under challenge, whereby and whereunder, the applications have been invited under sealed cover for "Selection of Agency for Diet in District Hospital". 2. It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of the earlier tender issued on 31.12.2013 as contained under Annexure-1, he is declared to be successful bidder and allotted work in his favour, and he is carrying out the aforesaid work in pursuance to the tender as contained under Annexure-1 and decision has been taken by the Tender Committee dated 08.03.2014 (Annexure-2). The petitioner''s grievance is that during the period of contract entered in between the petitioner and as also the respondent-authority the tenure is in subsistence, but in course thereof the fresh tender has been issued, therefore the fresh tender is not sustainable. 3. Learned A.C. to A.A.G. has submitted that the writ petition is not fit to be entertained for the reason that the relief as has been sought for under the (a) and (b) are in conflict to between each other. According to her when the petitioner is claiming to be allowed to carry out the work in pursuance to the tender dated 31.12.2013 (Annexure-1) but simultaneously he is also making prayer of disbursement of outstanding dues of Rs.10,00,000/-, it does suggests that the tenure of the petitioner in terms of the Annexure-1 has already expired. He further submits that since both the prayers are conflicted to each other, the same could not have been prayed in the instant writ petition. So far as the merit is concerned, it has been submitted that the petitioner is claiming to be allowed to carry out the work in pursuance to the tender issued dated 31.12.2013, but he has not annexed any work order, showing therein that the contract is subsisting. 4. So far as the merit is concerned, it has been submitted that the petitioner is claiming to be allowed to carry out the work in pursuance to the tender issued dated 31.12.2013, but he has not annexed any work order, showing therein that the contract is subsisting. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions it is evident from the material available on record that the petitioner has been declared successful bidder in terms of the notice inviting tender dated 31.12.2013 as contained under Memo No. 301 (Annexure-1) in terms thereof the petitioner along with two others namely M/s Durga Enterprises, Bokaro and M/s Ramakant Shahu, Joghardih have participated in the bid, the meeting of Tender Committee was conducted on 01.03.2014 in which on the basis of the comparative assessment of the details of one or the other bidders, the work order has been issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has started carrying out the work, therefore, tender in question has been issued after lapse of about six years as contained under Annexure-3. 5. The case of the petitioner that the work order issued in his favour, dated 31.12.2013, the period of said contract is still subsisting and in course of subsistence of the aforesaid period of new tender has been issued which is not justifiable action on the part of the said authority. Although the petitioner has taken the ground of subsistence of the ground but he is not annexed any work order or the terms and conditions of the contract, showing therein that what is the period of contract as to whether the same has been extended since under Annexure-1, there is no reference of any tenure of the terms of the contract either Annexure-1 or Annexure-2, therefore, in absence of any document in this regard, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that subsisting of the period of contract is not having any basis, the notice inviting tender as contained under Annexure-3 has been issued on 07.01.2019 while the first tender as Annexure-1 dated 31.12.2013 and fresh tender as contained under Annexure-3 dated 09.01.2019 has been issued after lapse of about six years, therefore in absence of any valid document, pertaining to tenure of the subsistence of the contract therefore, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 6. 6. It is further evident from Annexure-3 that the participants have been directed to submit the application, by 27.01.2019 at 05.00 Pm and date of opening of financial bid was fixed 29.01.2019 at 12.30 pm since the said period having lapsed and there is no pleading to the effect that what is the status of tender has come after tender, therefore, no positive direction can be passed. 7. In view thereof and in the entirety of facts and circumstance of the case this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case, accordingly this writ petition lacks merit, and is dismissed.