Pappu Kumar vs Bihar State Food And Civil Supply ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 759 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1042 of 2023
     ======================================================

Pappu Kumar, Son of Raghuvir Yadav, Resident of Village- Durve, Police Station- Chandauti, District- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Limited through its Managing Director, Daroga Prasad Rai Path, Patna.

2. The Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Limited, Daroga Prasad Rai Path, Patna.

3. The District Officer-cum- Chairman, District Transport Committee of BSFC, Gaya.

4. The District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Limited-cum- Secretary, District Transport Committee, Gaya.

5. The District Transport Officer-cum- Member, District Transport Committee, BSFC, Gaya.

6. The Additional Collector, Member, District Transport Committee, BSFC, Gaya.

7. The District Development Officer, Member, District Transport Committee, BSFC, Gaya.

8. The District Supply Officer-cum- OSD of District Magistrate, Gaya, District- Gaya.

9. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Food and Civil Supply Department Patna.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

     For the Petitioner/s   :    Mr.Rabindra Kumar Priyadarshi, Advocate
     For the State          :    Mr.Arvind Ujjwal, SC-4
     For the BSFC           :    Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA)

Date : 14-02-2023

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the respondents.

The present writ petition has been filed claiming the Patna High Court CWJC No.1042 of 2023 dt.14-02-2023

following reliefs :-

"(A) For quashing of Memo No.-1928 dated 09.12.2022 whereby the Bid of the petitioner has been found technically invalid and none- responsive and therefore rejected on non-est ground.

(B) For issuance of appropriate order/orders directing respondent authorities to declare the Bid of the petitioner valid and responsive and further the authorities be directed to allow the petitioner to participate in financial bid. (C) For grant of other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is found entitled from the facts and circumstances of the case."

The short facts, according to the petitioner, are that

pursuant to a Notice inviting E-Tender bearing NIT No. 153

dated 29.01.2022 issued for selection of transporters-cum-

handling & delivery contractors (DSD) to transport foodgrains

from FCI Godown to SFC, the petitioner participated in the

tender process. A meeting dated 18.11.2022 under the

Chairmanship of District Officer-cum-Chairman of District

Transport Committee, BSFC, Gaya was held for taking a

decision on technical bid. Vide Column No.6 of the Technical

Bid proceeding, the technical part of the bid of the petitioner has

been rejected finding it to be non-responsive for the reason that

the petitioner had affixed stamp of Rs.100/- instead of Rs.125/-. Patna High Court CWJC No.1042 of 2023 dt.14-02-2023

Thereafter, the District Officer-cum-Chairman, BSFC, Gaya had

issued notice vide Memo No.1928 dated 09.12.2022 declaring

the names of successful bidders and for filing of the objections

by the bidders/stakeholders found eligible/not eligible on or

before 15.12.2022. Pursuant to the aforesaid notice dated

09.12.2022, the petitioner filed his objection on 13.12.2022

submitting that with regard to shortage of welfare stamp/less

stamp, the petitioner was ready to deposit the penalty in terms of

Section 40 (1b) of the Indian Stamp Act and further submitted

that the petitioner had already deposited stamp of Rs.100/- and

was further ready to deposit deficit stamp, but no action has

been taken on the objection of the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

that the technical bid of the petitioner has been rejected finding

non-responsive for the reason that the petitioner had affixed

stamp of Rs.100/- in place of Rs.125/- and the petitioner is

ready to deposit any penalty higher than the deficit stamp as the

petitioner was not aware regarding welfare stamp and quantum

of stamp. Moreover, the shortage of stamp duty is not under the

head of essential criteria for disqualification of bid documents.

So, the respondents-authorities be directed to declare the bid of

the petitioner valid and responsive and allow the petitioner to

participate in the financial bid.

The learned counsel for the respondents while Patna High Court CWJC No.1042 of 2023 dt.14-02-2023

justifying the reasons for rejection of technical bid of the

petitioner, vehemently contended that the grounds of rejection

of technical bid of the petitioner are well justified and the

petitioner's technical bid has been rejected for affixing deficit

stamp on the affidavit accompanying bid document. Hence, no

interference is required by this Court in this matter.

Having considered the material available on record and

rival submissions, it appears that on 18.11.2022, the technical

bid of the petitioner has been rejected due to insufficiency of

stamp on affidavit submitted during the bidding process. It

further appears that after due application of mind, the

Authorities have rejected the technical bid of the petitioner and,

thereby, no illegality or irregularity has been committed in

rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner and the reasons

assigned for rejection of technical bid of the petitioner are well

justified and the same do not require interference by this Court.

It is well settled principle of law that the constitutional

courts are expected to exercise restrain in interfering with the

administrative decisions and ought not to substitute its view for

that of the administrative authority. The courts will not interfere

with the decision at the behest of an unsuccessful bidder in

respect of a technical or procedural violation. The Apex Court in

the case of Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651

has laid down the following principles in paragraph 94 :- Patna High Court CWJC No.1042 of 2023 dt.14-02-2023

"94. The principles deducible from the above are:

(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action.

(2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made.

(3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts.

(5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides.

(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy Patna High Court CWJC No.1042 of 2023 dt.14-02-2023

administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure.

Based on these principles we will examine the facts of this case since they commend to us as the correct principles".

It further appears the Authorities are yet to decide

objections filed by the petitioner against rejection of the

technical bid. But in the light of settled position of law in the

case of Tata Cellular (Supra), the same is immaterial.

Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J)

( Arun Kumar Jha, J) V.K.Pandey/-

AFR/NAFR                N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE                N.A.
Uploading Date          17.02.2023
Transmission Date       N.A.