S. Lalmohan Singh vs State Of Manipur & 2 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 353 Mani

                                                                                  No. 4
 LHAINEI Digitally
         by
                   signed
                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
 CHONG HAOKIP
         LHAINEICHONG
                                        AT IMPHAL
         Date: 2022.08.09
 HAOKIP 17:13:04 +05'30'

                                   WP(C) No. 615 of 2022
      S. Lalmohan Singh
                                                           .....Petitioner/s
        - Versus -
      State of Manipur & 2 Ors.
                                                            .... Respondent/s

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH 09.08.2022

[1] Heard Mrs. L. Ayangleima, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner.

Issue notice, returnable within 4 (four) weeks.

Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned Government Advocate accepts notice

on behalf of the respondents No. 1 & 3 and Mrs. O. Momota, learned counsel

accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No. 2, hence, no formal notice is

called for.

[2] The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the technical bids

submitted by the petitioner have been summarily rejected on the basis of

guidelines/provisions which are not applicable in the present tender process.

It has also been submitted by the learned counsel that under the procedure

and conditions enumerated under the tender notice, there is no provisions for

rejecting the tender bids of the petitioner on the grounds given by the

respondents in their letter dated 25.07.2022. It has further been submitted

that the procedure adopted by the respondents in rejecting the technical bids

of the petitioner was not notified or made known to the contractions including

WP(C) No. 615 of 2022 Page 1 the petitioner and that if technical bid of the petitioner is to be rejected on

such grounds, the authorities should have notified in advance such terms and

conditions prior to rejection of the technical bids and that the acts of the

respondents in rejecting the technical bids of the petitioner is very much

arbitrary. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a prayer for

passing an interim order restraining the respondents from issuing work orders

in respect of the impugned tender notice.

[3] Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned Government Advocate cited the

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "N.G. Projects

Limited Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain & Ors." reported in (2022) 6 SCC 127

wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-

"23. In view of the above judgments of this Court, the Writ Court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer. The Court does not have the expertise to examine the terms and conditions of the present day economic activities of the State and this limitation should be kept in view. Courts should be even more reluctant in interfering with contracts involving technical issues as there is a requirement of the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues as there is a requirement of the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues. The approach of the Court should be not to find fault with magnifying glass in its hands, rather the Court should examine as to whether the decision-making process is after complying with the procedure contemplated by the tender conditions. If the Court finds that there is total arbitrariness or that the tender has been granted in a mala fide manner, still the Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract. The injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional costs on the State and is also against public interest. Therefore, the State and its citizens suffer twice, firstly by paying escalation costs and secondly, by being deprived of the infrastructure for which the present day Governments are expected to work.

"26. A word of caution ought to be mentioned herein that any contract of public service should not be interfered with lightly and in any case, there should not be any interim order derailing

WP(C) No. 615 of 2022 Page 2 the entire process of the services meant for larger public good. The grant of interim injunction by the learned Single Bench of the High Court has helped no one except a contractor who lost a contract bid and has only caused loss to the State with no corresponding gain to anyone."

[4] By relying on the above principal of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court, it has been submitted by the learned Government Advocate that the

present writ petition is not at all maintainable and deserved to be dismissed

outright.

[5] Mrs. O. Momota, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2

submitted that the impugned NIT is a two bids system as clearly notified in

the tender notice 20.06.2022 and it is an undeniable fact that the Government

open the technical bids first and only after examining the technical bids, the

authorities fixed another date for opening and consideration of the financial

bids of those contractors whose technical bids are found to be responsive.

[6] The learned counsel also draw the attention of this Court to the

relevant provisions of CPWD manual wherein, the procedure for two bids

systems is clearly defined. The learned counsel further submitted that the

technical bids of the present petitioner have been rejected in terms of the

relevant provisions of the CPWD manual and after due consideration and

accordingly, the learned counsel submitted that no interim order is called for

in the present case.

The learned counsel further cited the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of "Central Coalfields Limited V. SLL-SML (Joint

Venture Consortium)" reported in (2016) 8 SCC 622 in support of her

contention.

        WP(C) No. 615 of 2022                                                Page 3
 [7]      After hearing the rival submissions and contentions raised by the

learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is not incline to pass any

interim order at this juncture and this Court is of the considered view that it

will be appropriate to consider the prayer for passing interim order after filing

of the counter affidavit by the respondents.

[8] Accordingly, let this case be listed again on 12.09.2022. In the

meantime, the respondents are directed to file their respective counter

affidavit.

                                                            JUDGE

Lhaineichong




         WP(C) No. 615 of 2022                                           Page 4