UNIBRO INFRASERV PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
LAWS(PAT)-2021-3-39
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Decided on March 25,2021

Unibro Infraserv Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

VIKASH JAIN,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an undertaking to remove all defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter as and when required. It is accordingly directed that all defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter be removed within one month hereof.
(2.) The following reliefs as formulated by the petitioner have been claimed in the writ petition-- '(i) For quashing the Memo No. 3246 dated 22.05.2020 and Memo No. 3252 Dt. 23.5.2020 issued by the respondent No.2, whereby technical bid of the petitioner has been disqualified by the Respondent no.2 assigning reason as deficient welfare stamp affixed on the affidavits submitted the petitioner with the technical bid and stated that it is not as per the instruction issued by the Engineer-in-Chief vide its Letter No. ? ? ?.? ? "? 4 (? ? ?.) ? ? ?? ? ?? ? ?? ? ?? ? ? '(? ? "?? ? ?? ? ?) 23-346/2019-511 ? ? "?? ? ?. ''? ? ?? ? ?? ? ?? ? ?? ? "? 29.1.2020, dated 29.1.2020 whereby welfare stamp of Rs. 25/- was required in place of Rs. 15, and this order is passed in connection with the NIT dated 16.01.2020 vide NIT No. Re-Tender MR- 3054-09/2019-20 invited by the Rural Works Department, Bihar Patna for initial Rectification and Ordinary Maintenance Works of Roads under package No. MR- N.19-20 Chapra 2/06 and MR-N-19-20 Chapra 2/07 under Works Division Chapra- 2, in Baniyapur Block under PMGSY Scheme, however the respondent no.2 had overlooked that alleged notification issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, vide its letter No. ? ? ?.? ? "? 4 (? ? ?.) ? ? ?? ? ?? ? ?? ? ?? ? ? '(? ? "?? ? ?? ? ? ) 23-346/2019-511 ? ? "?? ? ?. ? ? ?? ? ?? ? ?? ? ?? ? "? 29.1.2020, letter to the NIT, and it could not be application in this NIT until any corrigendum in this regard is issued, which is lacking in this case. Virtually the impugned order is passed to oust the petitioner and to allot the work to the single bidder under vested interest as the petitioner had quoted lowest rate as per information to him and in that case the said single bidder could not be accommodated by the respondents, moreover there is no deficiency in the documents of Technical Bid, hence under vested reasons the reasons assigned for disqualifying the technical bid, which is per say illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in law, and may be quashed, as no state instrumentalities of the state had jurisdiction to adopt nepotism as being contrary the mandates of Art. 14, 16 and 19 (g) of the constitution of India, hence the impugned orders dated 22/23.05.2020 may be quashed. ii. For directing the respondents not to act upon the decision dt. 22/23.05.2020 till disposal of the writ application, and meanwhile the respondents may be restrained from opening financial bid and from issuing work order in favour of single bidder as in that there could not be healthy competition and in that case there may be chance of loot of public fund in the name of Re-tender, moreover balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner as such there is no impediment in law to grant interim relief to the petitioner. And after quashing the impugned order, the respondents may be directed to open the financial Bid of the petitioner and if he may be found otherwise qualified, then allot the tender to the petitioner. iii. For granting any relief/s for which the petitioner be found entitled in law. '
(3.) The short facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that an NIT (Annexure-1) was issued on 16.01.2020 for initial rectification (IR) and for ordinary maintenance of roads (OMR) for a period of five years in different packages. The petitioner applied for two packages and uploaded its tenders for the packages appearing at item nos.10 and 11 of the NIT. By the impugned orders as contained in Memo No. 3246 and Memo No. 3252 both dated 23.05.2020 (Annexure-2), however, the petitioner's technical bid was rejected on the ground that advocate welfare stamps were deficient on the affidavits which were required to be of the value of Rs.25/- in terms of the letter dated 29.01.2020 (Annexure-4) issued by the Rural Works Department.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.