S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. - (1.) THE writ petition has been preferred by petitioner against the decision dated 18th November, 2002 whereby it was decided to purchase cements for the work in question from respondent No. 5 - -Larson and Turbo Limited (L & T) and Respondent No. 6. Orissa Cement Limited.
(2.) ACCORDING to petitioner. It is a company registered under the Companies Act, having its factory at N.S. 53 VI Phase, Industrial Area, Adityapur, Jamshedpur and Office at 9, Asiana Trade Centre, Adityapur, Jamshedpur. It is a small scale industry which manufactures cement. In pursuance of tender notice No. 12/Pur -012/2002 -04/Ranchi dated 12th September, 2002, petitioner as also respondent Nos. 5, 6 and others submitted tender for supply of cement. The following terms and conditions were mentioned : (I) Quality must confirm to ISI standard. (II) Tender for supply of OPC -33 (IS 269 : 1989) OPC -43 (IS 8112 : 1989) and Portland slag cement (IS 455 : 1989). (III) Income tax and sales tax clearance certificate upto March, 2002 must be attached with the tender paper. (IV) Only manufacturers of cement are entitled to participate in the tender. (Here no distinction has been made regarding Mini plant or Major plant). (V) Specific mode of payment has been prescribed saving the interest of the department. (VI) Procedure of receiving and quality check and in case of poor quality, it has to be replaced and further provision for penalty. (VII) Preference Clause, giving preference to manufacturers; who pay full JST and TOT and whose past performances were found satisfactory." The grievance of the petitioner is that though in pursuance of tender notice, 11 suppliers participated in the process, purchase records were evaluating and the petitioner -company fulfills all the conditions but for the reasons best known to the respondents, the work order has been issued in favour of respondent Nos. 5 and 6. So far as Respondent No. 5 is concerned, it was alleged that the income tax clearance certificate was not submitted and the sales tax certificate submitted was not in accordance with requirement. The tender submitted was conditional in regard to payment. Regarding respondent No. 6, it was alleged that the rate quoted by respondent No. 6 was not lowest from any destination and sales tax clearance was not shown but work order was issued on the basis of condition imposed by Respondent No. 6 that it will receive advance payment.
(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner relied on Rule 130 of Bihar Financial Rules to suggest violation of such rule. One of other decision of the Supreme Court was cited to suggest that the Court can interfere with the matter. On 17th December, 2002, when the Court issued notice on Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, noticed that they have not deposited the security money, but they have been asked to deposit it. The respondent -State was directed not to release any advance payment in favour of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.;