Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 736 (PAT)

Brahmcharini Construction LLP v. State of Bihar

2023-07-06

RAJIV ROY

body2023
Rajiv Roy, J. – Heard Mr, Jai Vardhan Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Special P.P. for Mines. 2. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs in this writ petition. (i) for issuance of an appropriate writs in the nature of mandamus declaring the petitioner's firm to be eligible for participating in the Government Tenders as a legally incorporated LLP under the LLP Act, 2008 and directing the Respondent No. 4, the District Magistrate, Bhojpur not to disqualify the firm as it filed e-tender on 14.11.2022 pursuant to the advertisement issued on 16.10.2022 for settlement of sand ghats for the district of Bhojpur on the ground that some of its partners had earlier been blacklisted to participate in the mining activity; (ii) according to the writ petitioner, the same is totally in contravention of proviso to Section 5 of the LLP Act, 2008 as also that the LLP has a separate legal entity and legal status from that of its partner and a partner cannot be hold responsible for another partners misconduct or negligence as there is no joint liability in the case of LLP; (iii) for the issuance of directions, orders or writs in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the District Magistrate Bhojpur, (the Respondent No. 4) as illegal and in contravention of the provisions of the statutory provisions vis-a-vis disqualifying the petitioner for participating in the auction proceeding in Cluster No. 40 Son Ghat District Bhojpur in which the petitioner had filed e-tender on 14.11. 2022 pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent no. 4 on 16.10.2022 and altogether a sum of Rs. 2,66,62,500/- was also deposited as a security deposit. (iv) for issuance of directions, orders and writs in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith allow it to participate in the fresh auction proceeding which was earlier held on 21. 11. 2022 as the petitioner's firm was duly qualified to participate in the aforesaid auction proceeding; (v) for issuance of an appropriate order or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not the proceed further in regard to settlement of Sand Ghat appertaining to Cluster No. 40 Sand Ghat District Bhojpur, since the very auction proceeding organized and conducted on 21.11.2022 is arbitrary and in utter violation the statutory provisions disqualifying the petitioner to participate in the aforesaid auction proceeding. 3. 3. The case of the petitioner that it is a company incorporated under Limited Liability Partnership, Act 2008 (henceforth for short ‘the LLP”) with the name of Brahmcharini Constructions. 4. Pursuant to the issuance of the tender notice dated 14.11.2022 for Cluster No. 40, Sand Ghat in the District of Bhojpur, the petitioner firm participated and submitted its tender. It is to be noted that the last date of filing of the tender was 14.11.2022 and the auction proceeding was scheduled for 21.11.2022. 5. However, on 19.11.2022, the petitioner firm received an e-mail by which it was informed that it has been disqualified on the ground that two of its partners namely, Randhir Kumar and Uma Devi has been blacklisted by D.M letter no. 221 dated 24.01.2020 and letter no. 220 dated 24.02.2020 respectively (the e-mail is attached as annexure 3 to the petition). 6. The petitioner firm immediately filed a representation on 20.11.2022 before the District Magistratecum- Collector, Bhojpur with a request to consider ‘the LLP’ as separate legal entity and to allow participation. As itwas not allowed to participate the writ petition. 7. The further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner firm is that subsequently, the respondents filed counter affidavit by which they have brought on record letter no. 482 dated 03.12.2022 showing rejection of representation by reasoned order. 8. It is his submission that prior to the filing of counter affidavit, neither he was served the copy nor he was aware of such order. He, however, concedes that despite the receipt of the said counter affidavit which encloses the order showing rejection, the same was not challenged in the present writ petition. 9. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents nos. 1 to 5 and learned Special P.P. has taken this Court to the tender notice with specific reference to clause 7 (gha) which reads as follows: – ^^¼?k½ bl vk'k; dk 'kiFk i= fd fufonknkrk@ikVZujf'ki QeZ@daiuh ds funs'kdksa esa ls fdlh dks Hkh jkT;@dsUæ ljdkj ds fdlh miØe }kjk dkyh lwph esa ugha Mkyk x;k gSA** 10. 1 to 5 and learned Special P.P. has taken this Court to the tender notice with specific reference to clause 7 (gha) which reads as follows: – ^^¼?k½ bl vk'k; dk 'kiFk i= fd fufonknkrk@ikVZujf'ki QeZ@daiuh ds funs'kdksa esa ls fdlh dks Hkh jkT;@dsUæ ljdkj ds fdlh miØe }kjk dkyh lwph esa ugha Mkyk x;k gSA** 10. It is his further submission that in the said petitioner’s partnership firm, two of its members namely, Randhir Kumar and Uma Devi were earlier blacklisted and debarred for the period of five years in participating in any tender for the mis-deed and the petitioner firm despite the knowledge of the aforesaid facts, chose to participate in the said tender notice in question. 11. The order rejecting the representation of the petitioner has been incorporated as Annexure D to the counter affidavit which read as follows: – i=kad 4821 fnukad 03-12-2022 Ásf"kr M/s Brahmcharini Cinstruction LLP, Deepak Kumar, S/o-Akhileshwar Prasad Verma, Pareo, Bihta, Patna-802160 Mob-9532329333, email-ranjitkrpareo@gmail.com fo"k;% Disqualification from participating in the auction proceeding for cluster no 40, Sone Ghat, District Bhojpur. 11. The order rejecting the representation of the petitioner has been incorporated as Annexure D to the counter affidavit which read as follows: – i=kad 4821 fnukad 03-12-2022 Ásf"kr M/s Brahmcharini Cinstruction LLP, Deepak Kumar, S/o-Akhileshwar Prasad Verma, Pareo, Bihta, Patna-802160 Mob-9532329333, email-ranjitkrpareo@gmail.com fo"k;% Disqualification from participating in the auction proceeding for cluster no 40, Sone Ghat, District Bhojpur. Álax% vkidk vH;kosnu fnukad 20-11-2022 mijksDr Áklafxd fo"k; ds lacaèk esa dguk gS fd vkids }kjk Áklafxd i= ds ekè;e ls vH;kosnu ÁkIr gqvk gSA ftlesa vkids }kjk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd Hkkstiqj ftykUrxZr ckyw?kkV BHOJ SON-40 dh cankscLrh gsrq fnukad 14-11-2022 dks e-tender Mkyk x;kA tcfd fnukad 19-11-2022 dks Auto generated email ds }kjk bZ&uhykeh esa Hkkx ysus gsrq vlQy ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus ds lacaèk esa lwpuk ÁkIr gqbZA mijksDr ds vkyksd esa funs'kkuqlkj dguk gS fd fcgkj ckyw [kuu uhfr] 2019 esa mYysf[kr Ákoèkkuksa ds rgr Hkkstiqj ftyk ds ckyw?kkVksa@ckyw[k.Mksa dh vkxkeh ik¡p o"kksZ ds fy, cankscLrh gsrq vYidkyhu fufonk gsrq foKkiu dk Ádk'ku lekgj.kky;] Hkkstiqj ds Kkikad&4367] fnukad 26-10-2022 }kjk fd;k x;k FkkA ftldk Ádk'ku fofHkUu lekpkj i=ksa esa fd;k x;k FkkA fufonk vkea=.k lwpuk esa vxzèku jkf'k ,oa vkWD'ku Ákslsflax Qhl vkWuykbZu tek rFkk fufonk nLrkost viyksM djus dh vafre frfFk 14-11-2022 ,oa rduhdh fufonk dh tk¡p@ewY;kadu dj lQy fufonknkrkvksa dh lwph flLVe esa lacafèkr lekgÙkkZ }kjk viyksM djus dh vafre frfFk 19-11-2022 FkhA fuèkkZfjr frfFk rd fufonknkrkvksa }kjk vkuykbu lefiZr okafNr dkxtkrksa dk rduhdh tk¡p gsrq lekgÙkkZ egksn; }kjk xfBr lfefr }kjk fnukad 19-11-2022 dks cSBd dj tk¡p fd;k x;kA fufonk nLrkost dh dafMdk&7¼èk½ esa Li"V mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd ^^bl vk'k; dk 'kiFk i= fd fufonknkrk@ikVZujf'ki iQeZ@daiuh ds funs'kdksa esa ls fdlh dks Hkh jkT;@dsUæ ljdkj ds fdlh miØe }kjk dkyh lwph esa ugha Mkyk x;k gSA** tcfd M/s Brahmcharini Cinstruction LLP, Deepak Kumar, S/o-Akhileshwar Prasad Verma, Pareo, Bihta, Patna-802160 ds fufonk dkxtkrksa dk fufonk lfefr }kjk voyksduksaijkUr Kkr gqvk gS fd vkWuykbZu viyksM fd, x, lk>snkjh nLrkost esa Jh j.kèkhj dqekj ,oa Jhefr mek nsoh M/s Brahmcharini Cinstruction LLP ds Existing Partner ds :i esa 'kkfey gS] ftls rRdkyhu lekgÙkkZ] Hkkstiqj ds vkns'k Øe'k% Kkikad&221] fnukad 24-01-2020 ,oa Kkikad&220] fnukad 24-01-2020 }kjk Hkkstiqj ftykUrxZr iapkx o"kZ 2020 ls vkxkeh ik¡p o"kksZ rd ds fy, gksus okyh bZ&uhykeh esa Hkkx ysus ls oafpr fd;k x;k gS] tks fd fufonk nLrkost dh dafMdk&7¼èk½ dk Li"V mYya?ku gSA ftlds dkj.k fufonk lfefr }kjk Li"V dkj.k dk mYys[k djrs gq, vkidks bZ&uhykeh esa Hkkx ysus gsrq vlQy ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k FkkA ftldh lwpuk vkidks flLVe }kjk Lor% ÁkIr gqbZ gSA lkFk gh fufonk nLrkost dh dafMdk&15 ^^lHkh bPNqd fufonknkrk bZ&uhykeh gsrq iathdj.k djus ,oa vkuykbZu vkosnu djus ls iwoZ fu;e ,oa 'krksZ dks vPNh rjg ls iढ+ ysA vkosnu djus ds ckn ;g ekuk tk;sxk fd fufonknkrkvksa }kjk fu;e ,oa 'kÙkksZ dks è;ku ls iढ+ fy;k x;k gS rFkk lHkh fu;e 'kÙkksZ mudks ekU; gSA ckn esa fdlh Hkh Ádkj dk nkok@vkifRr vLohdk;Z gksxkA** ds vkyksd esa iwoZ esa gh vkidks fufonk nLrkost dh lkjh 'kÙkksZ ,oa caèkstksa dks vPNh rjg iढ+dj vk'oLr gks tkuk pkfg, Fkk fd vki bZ&uhykeh esa Hkkx ysus gsrq ;ksX; gSa vFkok ughaA vr% fufonk nLrkost dh dafMdk&7¼èk½ ,oa 15 esa mYysf[kr Ákoèkku ds vkyksd esa vkids vH;kosnu dks [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA vuqyXud%& ;FkksDrA [kfut fodkl inkfèkdkjh] Hkkstiqj] vkjkA Kkikad&4821@,e] fnukad 03-12-2022 Áfrfyfi&lekgÙkkZ Hkkstiqj] vkjk dks lknj lwpukFkZ lefiZrA Áfrfyfi&funs'kd] [kku ,oa HkwrRo foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk dks lknj lwpukFkZ lefiZrA [kfut fodkl inkfèkdkjh] Hkkstiqj] vkjkA 12. He as such submits that the writ petition has no merit and is fit to be dismissed. 13. This Court has gone through the facts of the case. Admittedly, the petitioner firm consists of members which include Randhir Kumar and Uma Devi and it is also an admitted fact that they were earlier blacklisted by the respondents vide letter no. 221 dated 24.01.2020 and letter no. 220 dated 24.02.2020 respectively and thus disqualified to participate in the auction of the State Government. 14. Further clause 7 of the tender notice clearly incorporated that those participating in it will have to file an affidavit stating that any of the Director of the partnership firm/company is/are not blacklisted by the State Government or Central Government. 15. Despite the said clause in existence and the petitioner firm aware of the said fact that two of its directors/members stands blacklisted chose to participate. 16. The consequence was quite natural inasmuch as before the process was initiated, in came the e-mail informing the firm about the disqualification. 17. The petitioner thereafter preferred representation which as stated above stands rejected vide Memo No. 4821 dated 03.12.2022 issued by the Mineral Development Officer, Bhojpur at Ara. 18. This Court has gone through the facts of the case, the submissions put forward by the rival parties and is of the firm conclusion that the respondents are fully justified in disqualifying the petitioner firm from participating in the tender process as rejecting the representation vide Memo No. 4821 dated 03.12.2022. 19. The petitioner firm fully aware of the clause 7 (Gha) of the tender notice as also the fact that two of its partners are blacklisted, cannot agitate that the act of the respondents is/are unjustified. 20. There is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.