Suruchi Foods Private Limited vs State Of Jharkhand Through Its ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 529 Jhar

                              1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               L.P.A. No. 45 of 2022
                       -----

Suruchi Foods Private Limited, having its registered office at A-1/113, Safdarjung Enclave, P.O and P.S. Safdarjung, District New Delhi, through its authorised signatory Aditya Sarawgi, aged about 37 years, son of Binod Sarawgi, resident of Swastik Bhawan, Gandhi Chowk, Upper Bazar, P.O G.P.O Ranchi P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) ..... Petitioner/Appellant Versus

1.State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Women, Child Development and Social Security, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi.

2.Director, Social Welfare, Department of Women, Child Development and Social Security, Government of Jharkhand, Directorate of Social Welfare, Engineer's Hostel, Second Floor, Sector-III, HEC, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi.

3.Kota Dall Mill, having its office at Plot No. IV/H-13 to H-21, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. & P.S. - Bokaro Steel City, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand.

4.Interlink Foods Private Limited, having its address at Plot No. 1B, 2B, 3BP, 4 & 5B, Patratu Industrial Area, Patratu, P.O & P.S. -Patratu, District-Ramgarh, Jharkhand.

5.Aditya Flour Mills Private Limited having its address at Plot No. C-3(P), Bokaro Industrial Area, Jharkhand, Phase-IV, Bokaro, P.O., P.S. and District-Bokaro.

                       ...    ...Respondents/Respondents
                       With


                   L.P.A. No. 50 of 2022

M/s Rasi Nurti Foods India Private Limited, a Company registered under the Companies Act, 2013, having its office at Door No. 2/205, 2/207, R. Puliyampatty Village, P.O. & PS. Puduchatram, District Namakkal, Tamilnadu, through its authorized signatory, Mr. Ayylore Venkateshwaran Srinivasan, aged about 52 years, son of Vengateshwaran, resident of Old No. 352/5, New No. 5/710, Park Square 1 Street, Madipakkam, P.O. & P.S. - Madipakkam, District - Kancheepuram (Tamil Nadu).

Versus

1.The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary/Principal Secretary, Department of Women, Child Development and Social Security, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Town & District-Ranchi.

2.The Director, Department of Women, Child Development and Social Security, having office at Directorate of Social Welfare, Engineer's Hostel, 2nd Floor, Sector-III, HEC, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Town & District- Ranchi.

3.The Assistant Director, Department of Women, Child Development and Social Security, having office at Directorate of Social Welfare, Engineer's Hostel, 2nd Floor, Sector-III, HEC, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Town & District- Ranchi.

4.Kota Dall Mill, having its office at Plot No. IV/H-13 to H-21, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. & P.S. - Bokaro Steel City, District-Bokaro.

5.Interlink Foods Private Limited, having its address at Plot No. 1B, 2B, 3B, 4 & 5B, Patratu Industrial Area, Patratu, P.O & P.S. -Patratu, District-Ramgarh.

6.Aditya Flour Mills Private Limited having its address at Plot No. C-3(P), Bokaro Industrial Area, Jharkhand, Phas-IV, Bokaro, P.O., P.S. & District-Bokaro.

... ...Respondents/Respondents

----

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

-----

For the Appellants : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Vipul Poddar, Advocate [LPA No. 45 of 2022] Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate Mr. Sameer Rohatgi, Advocate [LPA No. 50 of 2022] For the State : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG II For the Private Respondents : Mr. Kalyan Roy, Advocate : Mr. Siddharth Roy, Advocate

-------

Oral Judgment Order No. 2 : Dated 17th February, 2022:

With consent of the parties, hearing of the matters

have been done through video conferencing and there is

no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual

quality.

2. Both the intra court appeals have been listed under

the heading for Orders (with defect).

3. Perused the office note.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that

defect, as pointed out by the office, shall be removed by

tomorrow.

Learned counsel for the appellants further submits

that subject to such undertaking, about removal of

defect, both the appeals may be heard together today

itself.

4. Learned counsel for the State as also private

respondents do not raise any objection to such prayer.

5. Office has raised the issue of maintainability of the

appeals vide Office Note dated 11.02.2022.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants, referring to

provision as contained under Clause-V of 'The Jharkhand

High Court Case Flow Management in the High Court

Rules, 2006,' has submitted that Letters Patent Appeal

(LPA) from the interlocutory orders of the learned Single

Judge under original jurisdiction including writ can be

filed.

7. Learned counsel for the State as also learned

counsel for the private respondents-the successful bidder

have not disputed the aforesaid legal position rather they

have submitted that matter may be heard on merit.

8. Considering the aforesaid submissions, this Court

is of the view that the instant appeals are maintainable.

Since both the appeal arises out of the common order

dated 02.02.2022 passed in W.P. (C) No. 260 of 2022 and

W.P. (C) No. 309 of 2022, they are being heard together

and are being disposed of at this stage itself.

9. The instant intra-court appeals have been preferred

against interim order dated 02.02.2022 passed by learned

Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 260 of 2022 and W.P. (C) No.

309 of 2022, whereby and whereunder the learned Single

Judge refused to grant interim stay of further proceeding

in respect of tender in question and disposed of

Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 671 of 2022 in

W.P. (C) No. 260 of 2022 seeking interim relief and has

held that the work awarded to the private respondents

and letter of intent issued to them with respect to Notice

Inviting Tender under e-Tender Reference No. PRO-

01/2021-22 dated 17.11.2021 shall be subject to final

outcome of the writ petitions.

10. The brief facts, necessary for consideration of the

lis, stand enumerated as hereunder:

The Department of Women, Child Development and

Social Security, Government of Jharkhand issued a

notice inviting tender being e-Tender Reference No. PRO-

01/2021-22 dated 17.11.2021 for the work of supply of

Micronutrient Fortified and/or Energy Dense Food as

supplementary nutrition for distribution under the

Anganwadi Services Scheme of Umbrella ICDS through

Anganwadi centres in the State of Jharkhand. The writ

petitioners-appellants along with others submitted their

bid together with requisite documents. But the writ

petitioners-appellants were disqualified at the technical

bid itself, as would be evident from proceeding of meeting

dated 18.01.2022. Aggrieved thereof, the writ

petitioners approached this Court by filing writ petitions

along with Interlocutory Application(s) seeking interim

relief.

The learned writ Court, after hearing learned

counsel for the writ petitioners, respondents-State as also

private respondents-the successful bidder, on the point of

interim relief, disposed of the impugned Interlocutory

Application holding that the work awarded to the private

respondents and the letters of intent issued to them with

respect to Notice Inviting Tender under e-Tender

Reference No. PRO-01/2021-22 dated 17.11.2021 issued

by the Department of Women, Child Development and

Social Security, Government of Jharkhand, shall be

subject to the final outcome of the writ petitions, which is

the subject matter of present intra-court appeals.

11. Mr. Mukul Rahatogi, learned senior counsel

appearing for the appellant in LPA No. 50 of 2022, and

Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant in

LPA No. 45 of 2022, referring to the reason of rejection of

technical bid, have submitted that reason upon which the

bids of the appellants have been rejected cannot be

considered to be material non-compliance of the bid

condition. It has further been submitted that though the

learned Single Judge has applied its mind by referring to

the argument advanced by the parties for passing an

interim order, as would appear from interim order

wherein the argument of the appellants, the State as also

the private respondents-the successful bidder have been

referred, but, no interim order of stay has been passed

rather order has been passed holding that the letters of

intent issued to private respondents with respect to

tender in question shall be subject to final outcome of the

writ petitions.

According to learned counsel since specific prayer

has been made in the Interlocutory Application for grant

of stay during the entire process of tender but the work

awarded to private respondents-the successful bidders

and letter of intent have been made subject to final

outcome of the writ petitions. It has further been

submitted that learned Single Judge has posted the

matter on 22nd March, 2022 and thereby did not consider

the fact that in the meanwhile third party right will be

created as also considering the nature of bid the writ

petition will become infructuous once the letter of intent

will be acted upon.

12. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned A.A.G. II appearing for

the State has submitted that since the learned Single

Judge has applied his mind while passing the interim

order in the writ petition, the learned Single Judge may

be requested to dispose of the writ petitions itself within

shortest possible time.

13. Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel for the private

respondents-the successful bidder, has agreed with the

submissions advanced by learned counsel for the State

and submits that he is having no objection if the appeals

are disposed of with a request to the learned Single Judge

to dispose of the writ petitions within shortest possible

time.

14. Upon such submission, learned counsel for the

appellants is having no objection.

15. This Court, considering the submissions advanced

by the parties, is of the considered view that at this stage

if any order would be passed going into the merit of the

issue, it will be nothing but deciding the lis on merit,

which according to our considered view will not be proper

considering the fact that the matter is still to be decided

on merit by the writ Court.

16. This Court, therefore, is of the considered view that

the matter requires to be adjudicated by the learned

Single Judge.

17. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge is requested

to decide the issue on merit within shortest possible time

preferably within a period of two weeks in accordance

with law.

18. Learned counsel for the State as also private

respondents undertake to file counter affidavit in the

meanwhile, if any.

19. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the

instant intra-court appeals stand disposed of.

20. Consequently, pending Interlocutory Application, if

any, also stands disposed of.

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.)

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Alankar/ -

N.A.F.R