- (1.)Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in paragraph-4 of the writ petition it is stated that the partnership firm was dissolved by a registered deed of dissolution, whereas it was dissolved by a simple deed of dissolution. The statement is made on the basis of instructions received from his client so as to place the correct fact on the record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels for the State Health Society and for the State.
(2.)The petitioner seeks quashing of the decision of the Technical Bid Scrutiny Committee dated 5.9.2013 of the State Health Society, Bihar as displayed on its Website by which the tender of the petitioner with respect to the works of Categories-A and C under Notice Inviting Tender dated 28.5.2013 has been rejected holding the petitioner to be disqualified in its technical bid on the ground that income tax returns submitted by the petitioner for the three requisite financial years were not in the same name and for consequential relief's.
(3.)The petitioner-firm, M/s. New Ratan Priya, was originally a partnership firm dissolved on 30.11.2009 by a simple deed of dissolution, and one of the partners Sudhir Prakash who was till that time holding 65% share in the entire partnership firm thereafter became the sole proprietor of the firm and the other partner Ravi Prakash, who in fact was a brother, retired from the partnership. It was directed in the deed of dissolution of partnership dated 30.11.2009 that the continuing partner of the firm shall have the right of exclusive use of the goodwill and right to carry on the business with full and irrevocable authority to collect all the outstanding debts and give valid and effective receipts and to discharge and settle any account, compromise any dispute or differences. It was further provided that the retiring partner will have no right, title or interest in use of the goodwill, outstanding assets of the partnership, printing off set machine dominate 724 (Double colour), other articles, outstanding dues debts with the customers and market. The Bank account was also to be operated by the remaining partner and all contracts and orders and its effects thereto were to be carried out by the continuing partner as the proprietor of the firm. It was further provided that although the firm was dissolved on 30.11.2009 but the final accounting will be done on 31.3.2010 and the retiring partners will be entitled and liable for all the assets of partnership and its liability as on 31.3.2010. The petitioner-firm through its proprietor, Sudhir Prakash, continued to carry on business of the firm as before.