Jharkhand High Court
Anjanwa Jalashay Matsyajiwi Sahyog ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Though Its Chief ... on 9 June, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 2503 of 2025
Anjanwa Jalashay Matsyajiwi Sahyog Samiti Limited, Chatra, having
its office at village Majhgawan, P.O. Majhgawan, P.S. Mayurhand,
District Chatra, Jharkhand, through its Secretary Rajni Singh, aged
about 39 years, wife of Damodar Singh, resident of village
Majhgawan, P.O. Majhgawan, P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra, Jharkhand.
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand though its Chief Secretary, having its
Office at Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
2. The Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and
Co-operative (Fisheries Division), having its office at Nepal House,
P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Chatra,
having its office at Chatra, P.O. Chatra, P.S. Chatra, District
Chatra, Jharkhand.
4. Additional Collector, having its office at Chatra, P.O. Chatra, P.S.
Chatra, District Chatra, Jharkhand.
5. District Commissioner, having its office at Chatra, P.O. Chatra,
P.S. Chatra, District Chatra, Jharkhand.
6. H.M. Ekta, Anjanwa Jalashay Matsyajiwi Sahyog Samiti Limited,
having its office at village Mahesa, P.Ο. Mandhniya, P.S.
Mayurhand, District Chatra, Jharkhand.
... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G.
Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, Advocate
---------
02/Dated: 09.06.2025
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.(Oral)
1. Notice to respondents.
2. Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to learned Advocate General, accepts
notice for respondent nos.1 to 5 and Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, learned
counsel, accepts notice for respondent no.6 and waive service.
3. Admittedly there is a specific condition imposed in Annexure 3
dt. 22.12.2024 that an affidavit should be filed by a bidder that there
are no criminal cases against its members.
4. Since admittedly Annexure 5 dt. 09.04.2025, Minutes of the
Meeting, disclosed that as against the 6th respondent's four members,
there are criminal cases pending in a Chatra Criminal Court, prima
facie, the award of the subject tender to the said respondent is
violative of above condition in Annexure 3 and also Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
5. This is because in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International
Airport Authority of India & Others, (1979) 3 SCC 489, the
Supreme Court has held in para-10 as under -
"10. Now, there can be no doubt that what para (1) of the
notice prescribed was a condition of eligibility which was
required to be satisfied by every person submitting a tender.
The condition of eligibility was that the person submitting a
tender must be conducting or running a registered IInd Class
hotel or restaurant and he must have at least 5 years'
experience as such and if he did not satisfy this condition of
eligibility, his tender would not be eligible for consideration.
This was the standard or norm of eligibility laid down by
Respondent 1 and since the Respondents 4 did not satisfy this
standard or norm, it was not competent to Respondent 1 to
entertain the tender of Respondents 4. It is a well-settled rule of
administrative law that an executive authority must be
rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its
actions to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those
standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them.
This rule was enunciated by Mr Justice Frankfurter
in Viteralli v. Saton [359 US 535 : Law Ed (Second series)
1012] where the learned Judge said:
"An executive agency must be rigorously held to the
standards by which it professes its action to be judged
.... Accordingly, if dismissal from employment is based
on a defined procedure, even though generous beyond
the requirements that bind such agency, that procedure
must be scrupulously observed .... This judicially
evolved rule of administrative law is now firmly
established and, if I may add, rightly so. He that takes
the procedural sword shall perish with the sword."
This Court accepted the rule as valid and applicable in India
in A.S. Ahluwalia v. Punjab [(1975) 3 SCC 503, 504 : 1975
SCC (L&S) 27 : (1975) 3 SCR 82] and in subsequent decision
given in Sukhdev v. Bhagatram [(1975) 1 SCC 421, 462 : 1975
SCC (L&S) 101 : (1975) 3 SCR 619] , Mathew, J., quoted the
above-referred observations of Mr Justice Frankfurter with
approval. It may be noted that this rule, though supportable
also as an emanation from Article 14, does not rest merely on
that article. It has an independent existence apart from Article
14. It is a rule of administrative law which has been judicially
evolved as a check against exercise of arbitrary power by the
executive authority."
6. Similar view has also been taken in Vidarbha Irrigation
Development Corporation and Others v. Anoj Kumar Agarwala
and Others, (2020) 17 SCC 577, as under -
"16. It is clear even on a reading of this judgment that the words
used in the tender document cannot be ignored or treated as
redundant or superfluous--they must be given meaning and their
necessary significance. Given the fact that in the present case, an
essential tender condition which had to be strictly complied with
was not so complied with, the appellant would have no power to
condone lack of such strict compliance. Any such condonation,
as has been done in the present case, would amount to perversity
in the understanding or appreciation of the terms of the tender
conditions, which must be interfered with by a constitutional
court."
7. Therefore, the respondent nos.1 to 5 shall ensure that the 6th
respondent does not catch any fish in the subject reservoir, until
further orders.
8. List on 14.07.2025.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Manoj/Pramanik/Cp.2
