S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) Aggrieved by rejection of his bid, the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioner claiming himself registered contractor under Building Construction Department, Dumka submitted his bid pursuant to Tender notice dated 17.07.2015 for repairing and maintenance of "B" Block of Collectoriate Building, Jamtara. The last date for opening the Tender was 29.07.2015 and the eligible candidates were shortlisted on 31.07.2015. After the meeting of the Tender Committee a final decision to award work under the Tender to respondent No. 7 was taken on 06.08.2015.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have admitted that the bids submitted by the petitioner and the respondent No. 7 was for the same value and both have registration as contractors of the same year still, without disclosing a reason, work in question has been awarded to respondent No. 7. It is contended that decision dated 06.08.2015 awarding work in question to respondent No. 7 does not disclose consideration of the case of the petitioner and therefore, the decision taken by the Superintending Engineer is vitiated in law. It is further contended that in the counter affidavit, the respondents have taken a plea that petitioner failed to submit his PAN Card, TIN and CRN JVAT106 for which the respondents could have issued notice to the petitioner directing him to submit the documents. It is stated that the Income Tax Return and Commercial Tax Clearance Certificate were produced by the petitioner which would disclose PAN number and the fact that the petitioner has been paying tax to the Commercial Taxes Department.
(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner does not deny that he failed to submit PAN Card, TIN etc. The plea taken by the petitioner that the authority could have understood that the petitioner is an income tax payee and he has been paying tax to the Commercial Taxes Department and thus, he has a PAN card and he has Commercial Taxes registration is not contemplated under the terms and conditions notified for Tender notice dated 17.07.2015. NIT dated 17.07.2015 does not authorise the authorities to require a tenderer to submit deficit documents subsequently and had this procedure been adopted by the authority, it would have become arbitrary. It is denied that decision taken by the respondent -Superintending Engineer on 06.08.2015 to award work to respondent No. 7 is arbitrary.;