For Petitioner : Ms. Anushka Singh Chouhan, Advocate
For State/respondents : Ms. Shashank Thakur, Addl. Adv. General
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
1. Heard Ms. Anushka Singh Chouhan, learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional
Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. Though the matter is listed for orders on defaults, namely,
advance copy not served to respondent No.7, page Nos. 22, 44,
45, 46 are fail and page Nos. 60, 61 are faint in spare part,
3. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the
4. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article
"10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to issue writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent
Authorities to conduct a thorough investigation into
the repeated fraudulent practices of The Respondent
No.5 in public tender bids and to take appropriate
actions against them.
10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to grant a permanent injunction restraining the
Respondent No.5 from participating in any future
public tenders or contracts, thereby safeguarding the
integrity of public procurement process.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to take strict action against the Respondent No.6 for
issuance of forged certificate and fabricating
Financial Data to be used for participation in Bids for
Respondent No.5.
10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly direct
Respondent No.7 for strict action against forged
certificate and fabricating Financial Data to be used
for participation in Bids by Respondent No.5.
10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and
appropriate."
5. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner
against the Respondent No.5, alleging that he is using the
experience, turnover, profits and networth credentials of
partnership firm in his new LLP (Limited Liability Partnership) as
M/s Ramsaran Singh Projects LLP having PAN ABIFR7963 and
GST No. 22ABIFR7963C175 and misrepresenting and deceiving
authorities while participating in various Bids for Tenders, and
against Respondent No.6 for fabricating financial data for the
years when the LLP did not exist and certificate of merger without
verifying existence of entities. It is further alleged that the
Respondent No.5 has been using same PAN for various entities
which is illegal and has not complied with the mandatory
prerequisites for conversion or merger as Form-17 and NCLT
approval does not exist which is a statutory requirement
Additionally, the Respondent No.5 claims merger of its Partnership
firm which means it should be dissolved but it still operates and
Respondent No.5 files GST Returns under same Registration,
proving no merger occurred and the Respondent No.5 being an
LLP, in its Take-over (Merger) Deed, is mentioned as a Company
under Companies Act, showing intention to deceive and they have
been successful in escaping any legal action against them only by
raising technical grounds and not on merits seeking
aforementioned reliefs.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 5
has misrepresented its credentials by unlawfully relying on the
experience, turnover and financials of a separate partnership firm,
thereby vitiating the fairness of the bidding process. It is further
submitted that respondent No. 5, in collusion with respondent No.
6, has relied upon financial data for periods when the LLP did not
exist and has produced unverified merger documents, while also
using the same PAN across distinct legal entities, which is
impermissible in law. It is also submitted that the alleged merger
is wholly non-compliant with the provisions of the Limited Liability
Partnership Act, 2008, as no requisite statutory approvals or filings
have been made, and the continued operation of the partnership
firm, including filing of GST returns, clearly disproves any such
merger. She contended that the inconsistencies in the Take-over
Deed and the reliance on incorrect credentials render the bid non-
responsive under settled procurement norms. She further
contended that despite these serious irregularities, no action has
been taken by the respondent authorities.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that
the present petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed in
limine, as it raises disputed questions of fact not amenable to
adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is
submitted that respondent No. 5 participated in the tender process
in accordance with prescribed conditions and furnished all
required documents, and the evaluation was conducted strictly as
per the tender terms without any arbitrariness. It is further
submitted that the issues regarding alleged merger, financial
credentials and use of PAN require detailed factual examination
by competent authorities and cannot be the subject of a writ
petition. It is also submitted that no violation of any statutory
provision or tender condition is made out, and the petitioner, being
an unsuccessful bidder, is seeking to stall the process, therefore,
in the absence of any illegality, mala fides or perversity, the
present petition deserves to be dismissed in limine.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record, this Court finds that the controversy raised by
the petitioner pertains to alleged misrepresentation of credentials,
validity of merger/conversion, and use of financial data by
Respondent No. 5, which involve seriously disputed questions of
fact requiring detailed examination of evidence and are therefore
not amenable to adjudication in writ jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.
9. It is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Cellular v.
Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 that judicial review
in contractual matters is concerned with the decision-making
process and not the merits of the decision, and that "the court
does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in
which the decision was made" Further, in Michigan Rubber
(India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka reported in (2012) 8 SCC 216
the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "if the decision relating to
award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will
not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a
procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a
tenderer is made out".
10. In the present case, no patent illegality, arbitrariness, mala fides,
or violation of statutory provisions or tender conditions has been
demonstrated on the face of the record; accordingly, in view of the
settled legal position, this Court finds no ground to exercise its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, and the present writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in
limine, with no order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Chandra
