Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 393 (JHR)

M&S Company v. State of Jharkhand

2023-03-22

ANANDA SEN, SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA

body2023
ORDER : 1. By filing this writ petition, this petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: (A) For quashing of decision of Departmental Tender Committee dated 23.02.2023 with respect to Tender bearing Reference No. RCD/Godda/1145/2022-23 (Annexure-5), enclosed to Memo No. 933(S)WE dated 23.02.2023 of the respondent No. 3, whereby and wherein the Departmental Tender Committee has rejected the bid of the petitioner on wholly erroneous and arbitrary ground and cancelled the Notice Inviting Tender on the ground of single bid and directed for re-issuance of tender for reconstruction of Mahagama (Kechua Chowk) to Digghi Road (MDR-201) including Bridges (total length 11.597 Km). (B) For a direction upon the respondents to consider the bid of the petitioner with respect to tender bearing reference No. RCD/Godda/1145/2022-23 as a responsive bid and proceed with opening of bids and finalization of tender bearing Tender Reference No. RCD/Godda/1145/2022-23 dated 04.11.2022, since the impugned decision of the Departmental Tender Committee with respect to the petitioner is without any basis, completely arbitrary and suffers from non application of mind. (C) For quashing of tender bearing Reference No. RCD/Godda/328/2022-23 (2nd Call) dated 24.02.2023 (Annexure-6) issued by the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Division, Godda with respect to reconstruction of Mahagama (Kechua Chowk) to Digghi Road (MDR-201) including Bridges (total length 11.597 Km) as a consequential action of the impugned decision of Departmental Tender Committee dated 23.02.2023, whereby the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Godda was directed to re issue the tender on account of the first tender being cancelled for being a single bid case. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has put forth a Certificate (Annexure 2) to show that his gross turnover for the year 2020-21 is Rs.1,72,90,77,797.24. However, his bid was rejected by the authorities on the ground that the Certificate that has been attached to the bid document that is issued by the Chartered Accountant M/s. A.K. Mishra & Associates shows the income of the petitioner for the financial year 2020-21 as Rs.146.99 Crores. Thus, the authorities came to the conclusion that the documents filed by the petitioner are contradictory and discrepant and, therefore, the bid was rejected. 3. Learned counsel to the petitioner would submit that it was a mistake on the part of the Chartered Accountant and this document was not required to be filed in the bid document. Hence, the authorities acted illegally. 4. 3. Learned counsel to the petitioner would submit that it was a mistake on the part of the Chartered Accountant and this document was not required to be filed in the bid document. Hence, the authorities acted illegally. 4. However, we are of the opinion that when a document is filed in support of the claim of the petitioner before the authorities inviting tender, the authorities have jurisdiction and it is within the gamut of their functions to scrutinize the entire papers and even if some documents are not mentioned in the check-list but the document itself contradicts the other document especially with regard to the qualification of the petitioner, then that has to be taken into consideration and for that reason no order can be passed holding therein that the authorities have acted illegally. Moreover, the said tender has already been cancelled and fresh tender has been floated by the authorities on the ground that the only one tenderer was found to be responsive. Tender matters are very technical issues and as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raunaq International Ltd. vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. it is not proper on the part of the Court to enter into controversies involving technicalities. 5. The authorities must be a given certain discretion in this matter. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the writ application and, therefore, the writ application is dismissed at the threshold in limine being devoid of any merit. 6. All pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of. 7. No orders as to costs. 8. Urgent copies as per Rules.