Hope Through Its Managing Trustee ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 2964 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
         W.P. (C) No. 3849 of 2023
HOPE through its Managing Trustee Manorama Ekka ...Petitioner
                           Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of Woman, Child Development and
   Social Security, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Director-cum-Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Child Protection
   Agency, Department of Women, Child Development and Social
   Security, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Child Protection
   Unit, Lohardaga
5. Deputy Development Commissioner, Lohardaga
6. District Social Welfare Officer, Lohardaga
7. District Child Protection Officer (DCPO), Lohardaga
8. Gramin Samaj Kalyan Vikas Manch through Chief Functionary
   namely Md. Hasmat Rabbani, Palamu
9. Samarpan through Secretary namely Indramani Sahu, Koderma
                                       ...     ...     ...  Respondents
                           ---------
CORAM:         SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J.
                    SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
                           ---------
For the Petitioner:        Mr. Soumitra Baroi, Advocate
                           Mr. Rakesh Kumar No.2., Advocate
For the State:             Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III
                           ---------

02/Dated: 17.08.2023

      Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court

passed the following, (Per, Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)

                    ORDER

1. By filing this writ application, the petitioner through its Managing

Trustee has prayed for the following reliefs:-

"(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) for cancellation of the selection and grant of work order whereby and whereunder the Respondent No.8 namely 'Gramin Samaj Kalyan Vikas Manch' has been allotted the work for running Specialised Adoption Agency (SAA) and further the Respondent No.9 namley 'Samarpan' has been allotted the work for running Child Care Institution (CCI) as would appear from letter no. 24/Ji.Ba.San.E.Lo dated 15/02/2023 (Annexure-8) and the same has been done in complete violation of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and

Protection) Amendment Act 2021 and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Amendment Rule, 2022;

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) commanding upon the concerned respondents for issuance of fresh tender strictly adhering to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Amendment Act, 2021 and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Amendment Rules, 2022 for running Specialised Adoption Agency and Child Care Institution in the district of Lohardaga;

(iii) For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) that Your Lordships may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner."

2. The facts of the case at this stage are not disputed. On

15.12.2022 the Expression of Interest was invited by the office of the

Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Lohardaga under the

aegis of District Child Protection Unit, Department of Social Welfare

for a project 'Mission Vatsalya' which is the project of the Central

Government, wherein Child Care Institutions for 50 children in need of

care and protection (CNCP) has to be run as per the Rules framed

under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)

Amendment Act, 2021 and the Rules framed thereunder.

3. Similarly, on the same day, i.e., on 15.12.2022 an Expression of

Interest was invited by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District

Magistrate, Lohardaga under the aegis of the aforesaid Department

for implementation of the Central Government Scheme wherein,

Specialised Adoption Agency for 10 children, aged between 0 to 6

years has to be run as per the Rules framed under the Juvenile

Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2021 and

the Rules framed thereunder.

4. The petitioner along with others submitted the bids. However,

the petitioner is disqualified as he did not satisfy two conditions. The

first ground is that it was not registered under the Rights of Persons

with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the second ground that the annual

turnover of the petitioner should be above Rs.50 lakhs.

5. The petitioner knowing well the conditions mentioned in the

standard bid document/NIT did participate in the said process and

ultimately, he was found disqualified. At present, he is challenging the

action of the respondents on the ground that these two conditions are

not reasonable and therefore, this should not have been made part of

the standard bid document.

6. We are of the opinion that once a party participates in the

tender process by filing a bid document and then he is disqualified, he

cannot challenge the conditions mentioned in the documents. In this

condition, we rely upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Silppi Constructions Contractors Vs. Union of India and

Another, (2020) 16 SCC 489.

7. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the writ

application is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. There

shall be no orders as to costs.

8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

9. Grant urgent certified copy of this order as per the Rules.

(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)

(Ananda Sen, J.) APK/VK