Jharkhand High Court
S. G. Print-N - Pack Industries Private ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ... on 24 January, 2024
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (C) No. 244 of 2024
---
S. G. Print-N - Pack Industries Private Limited through its Director Shri
Krishna Murari Agarwal @ Kishan, Adityapur, Seraikela-Kharsawan,
Jharkhand ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Ranchi,
Jharkhand
2. The Special Secretary, The Information and Public Relations
Department, Bariatu, Ranchi, Jharkhand
3. The Director, The Information and Public Relations Department,
Bariatu, Ranchi Jharkhand ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Harsh Preet Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Gaurav Raj, AC to AAG II
---
2/24.01.2024 Defects as pointed out by the office are ignored.
2. Heard Mr. Harsh Preeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Gaurav Raj, learned AC to AAG II for the State.
3. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction
upon the respondents for considering the objection raised by the
petitioner in relation with Bid No. 570560 in connection with Tender Id
2023_IPRD_79720_1 issued by the Department of Information and Public
Relations for printing and supply of Stand Calendar. The petitioner has
further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to issue a
corrigendum to extend the entire timeline with regard to aforesaid tender
and to stay the entire process in relation to the tender and not to create
any third party interest. A further prayer has been made by the writ
petitioner to command upon the respondents to remove/amend the
eligibility criteria relating to prior experience as mentioned in Clause 10
Sub-clause 'ka' and 'kha' of the tender document.
4. It has been submitted by Mr. Harsh Preet Singh, learned counsel
for the petitioner that the petitioner had participated in the tender and in
fact he fulfills the conditions laid down in Clause 10 (ka) as well as
Clause 10 (kha). Learned counsel for the petitioner while taking us
through Clause 10 (ka) of the tender document has stated that the
petitioner had already obtained work order with respect to supply of
printing of one lakh calendar, but the same is related to a private firm
and since Clause 10 (kha) does not at all indicate that such experience has
to be of supply of one lakh calendar in a government/semi-
government/public enterprise, the respondent could not have rejected
the technical bid of the petitioner. Learned counsel has also submitted
that Clause 10 (kha) has to be correctly interpreted and if the same
favours the petitioner, the same interpretation should be made and in
support of such contention, he has referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble
Superme Court in the case of "Bangalore Electricity Supply Company
Limited (BESCOM) Vs. E. S. Solar Power Pvt. Ltd. & Others" in Civil
Appeal No. 9274 of 2019 reported in (2021) 6 SCC 718.
5. Mr. Gaurav Raj, learned AC to AG has submitted that Clause 10
(kha) is in continuation of the Clause 10 (ka) and therefore, since the
petitioner did not submit any work order with respect to printing and
supply of one lakh calendar in any one year out of preceding three years,
his technical bid for tender has rightly been rejected by the evaluation
committee.
6. Briefly stated the facts reveals that the respondent no. 3 had issued
a tender for printing and supply of one lakh calendar vide Tender Id
2023_IPRD_79720_1. The petitioner had participated in the tender
process and had submitted the necessary documents. However, the
petitioner could come to know about the rejection of his technical bid in
the online portal wherein it has been mentioned that "work order
evidencing printing and supply of one lakh calendar in any government
or semi government or PSU was not attached". This according to the
learned counsel for the petitioner is not in consonance with Clause 10
(ka) read with Clause 10 (kha). Since Clause 10 (ka) and 10 (kha), the
interpretation of which has been stressed much upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, we have perused the same and so far as the
Clause 10 (ka) is concerned, the participants have to upload the work
order made in a government/semi government/PSU for the last three
years which the learned counsel for the petitioner submits was duly
submitted by the petitioner. However, the dispute seems to be with
respect to Clause 10 (kha) which reveals that in any one year within the
preceding three years there should be a work order of printing of one
lakh calendar which should also be uploaded. It has also clearly been
mentioned that no relaxation shall be made with respect to the
experience as enumerated in the Clause 10 of the tender. The petitioner
admittedly did not upload the work order of any government/semi-
government/PSU and is banking upon the fact that there is no specific
intent in Clause 10 (kha) to upload such document and in fact the
petitioner would be eligible if the petitioner uploads work order with
respect to printing of one lakh calendar with respect to a private firm as
well. This in our considered view amounts to misinterpretation of
Clause 10 (kha) as Clause 10 (kha) has to be read in consonance with
Clause 10 (ka). Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred
to the case of "Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited
(BESCOM) (supra), wherein it has been held as follows:
"17. The duty of the court is not to delve deep into the intricacies
of human mind to explore the undisclosed intention, but only to take
the meaning of words used i.e. to say expressed intentions (Kamla
Devi v. Takhatmal Land [Kamla Devi v. Takhatmal Land, (1964) 2
SCR 152 : AIR 1964 SC 859] ). In seeking to construe a clause in a
contract, there is no scope for adopting either a liberal or a narrow
approach, whatever that may mean. The exercise which has to be
undertaken is to determine what the words used mean. It can happen
that in doing so one is driven to the conclusion that clause is
ambiguous, and that it has two possible meanings. In those
circumstances, the court has to prefer one above the other in
accordance with the settled principles. If one meaning is more in
accord with what the court considers to be the underlined purpose
and intent of the contract, or part of it, than the other, then the court
will choose the former or rather than the latter. Ashville Investments
Ltd. v. Elmer Contractors Ltd. [Ashville Investments Ltd. v. Elmer
Contractors Ltd., 1989 QB 488 : (1988) 3 WLR 867 : (1988) 2 All
ER 577 (CA)] The intention of the parties must be understood from
the language they have used, considered in the light of the
surrounding circumstances and object of the contract. Bank of
India v. K. Mohandas [Bank of India v. K. Mohandas, (2009) 5 SCC
313 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 524 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 32] . Every
contract is to be considered with reference to its object and the whole
of its terms and accordingly the whole context must be considered in
endeavouring to collect the intention of the parties, even though the
immediate object of inquiry is the meaning of an isolated
clause. Bihar SEB v. Green Rubber Industries [Bihar SEB v. Green
Rubber Industries, (1990) 1 SCC 731]."
7. Perusal of Clause 10 (ka) as well as Clause 10 (kha) does not
indicate any ambiguity in the said clauses with respect to the experience
which the petitioner has to upload. The tender which the petitioner has
participated has been issued by the Government of Jharkhand and
Clause 10 (ka) clearly reveals the experience which must be with respect
to government/semi-government/PSU and as an automatic corollary
related with the experience necessary in respect to Clause 10 (kha), it has
to be read to include a government/semi-government/PSU to which
work order of printing of one lakh calendar has to be uploaded. In the
judgment which has been referred by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, it has been clearly indicated that every contract is to be
considered with reference to its object and the whole of its terms and
accordingly the whole context must be considered in endeavoring to
collect the intention of the parties, even though the immediate object of
inquiry is the meaning of an isolated clause.
8. Taking a cue from the observations made, it can safely be assumed
that Clause 10 (kha) has to be read in whole with Clause 10 (ka) and the
interpretation is categorical to the effect that in both the clauses, the
necessary ingredients are of requirement to have participated in supply
of calendar in a government/semi-government/PSU and not supply to a
private firm.
9. In such circumstances, therefore, the rejection of the bid by the
Technical Evaluation Committee cannot be faulted with and considering
the aforesaid facts, we are not inclined to entertain this writ application
which accordingly stands dismissed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
R Shekhar Cp 2
