Patna High Court
Sita Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 6 August, 2024
Bench: Chief Justice, Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8946 of 2024
======================================================
Sita Devi Wife of Ram Narayan Rai, Resident of Village - Majhauli
Dharmadas, P.S.- Sadar, District - Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Khadya
Bhawan, R block, Daroga Prasad Rai Path, Road No. 2, Patna, Bihar.
3. The Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation
Limited, Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Vaishali, Hajipur.
5. The District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation
Limited, Vaishali, Hajipur.
.. ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ansul, Advocate
Mr. Shyam Kishore, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Upadhyaya, AC to SC-9
For the BSFC : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 06-08-2024
The petitioner is before us challenging the
cancellation of the work awarded to her as L1.
2. We heard Shri Ansul, learned Counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Shri Anjani Kumar, learned Senior
Patna High Court CWJC No.8946 of 2024 dt.06-08-2024
2/6
Standing Counsel appearing for respondent- Corporation.
3. The petitioner had applied under Annexure P/1
issued by the Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation
Limited, Hajipur (Vaishali) for selection of Transporter- cum-
Handling Contractor (Main). The bidders were obliged to
produce self-attested copies of the registration books of 5
trucks, owned by the bidder and 30 other trucks, which are
obtained by the bidder under a separate lease or contract
agreement. The petitioner had applied under the Notice
Inviting Tender (for brevity 'NIT') which was issued on
27.09.2023
. The bid submission due date was 21.11.2023 and
the technical bid was opened as per the NIT on 24.11.2023.
The petitioner was issued with the offer letter on 30.12.2023
and the petitioner was called upon to sign the agreement before
03.01.2024.
4. The petitioner, on her own submission, was not
able to sign the agreement since the trucks owners, whose
trucks the petitioner had obtained under lease had cancelled the
lease agreements. The petitioner was further granted time by
Annexure P/6 dated 23.01.2024 to execute an agreement on
25.01.2024, which was also not complied with.
5. Later to that, the petitioner submitted a list of 30
Patna High Court CWJC No.8946 of 2024 dt.06-08-2024
trucks, some included in the original tender and some replaced
after the truck owners refused to continue the lease
agreements. The respondent-Corporation refused to accept the
same and rejected it by Annexure P/8. The reason stated was
that the trucks differed from those which were offered as per
the original bid.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on
Clause 11 (xxv) to contend that the vehicles could be replaced
at any time. Clause 11 (xxv) is extracted hereunder :-
"11 (xxv) The vehicle has to be
registered/Leased in the name of the bidder/his
family members/directors/partners till the end
of the agreement and transportation of food
grains should be on these vehicles. In case the
vehicle is required to be disposed of or
replaced for unavoidable reasons during the
currency of the contract, the same shall be
made on written prior intimation to the District
Manager with substitute of a suitable vehicle in
the name of the bidder along with its
documentary evidence. These vehicles must be
like other vehicles with GPS with load shell
and sim, texture/colour and written
descriptions on the body."
(Underlining for emphasis by us)
7. A reading of the above extract would clearly
Patna High Court CWJC No.8946 of 2024 dt.06-08-2024
indicate that vehicle replacement is possible only if the same is
disposed of or replaced for unavoidable reasons during the
currency of the contract. This does not enable a bidder to
replace the vehicles which were offered along with the original
bid document.
8. We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the
order of cancellation.
9. The next contention raised by the petitioner is with
respect to the blacklisting for five years. The learned Senior
Standing Counsel for the respondent, however, points out that
forfeiture of EMD is a consequence of failure to provide the
trucks as per the original bid document, once the work is
awarded. The blacklisting is a necessary consequence of such
forfeiture. Four bidders had challenged the award of the work
as per CWJC No. 3024 of 2024 and analogous cases, where
this Court found that they withdrew at the time of negotiation.
In fact, there were complaints raised against this petitioner also
who was declared L1 in the tender process. Therein the writ
petition was dismissed finding that the four writ petitioners had
either withdrawn at the negotiation stage or failed to furnish
the required documents or not turning up for entering into an
agreement. As of now, it is also submitted that a new tender
Patna High Court CWJC No.8946 of 2024 dt.06-08-2024
has been issued since all the persons have been disqualified.
10. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents
pointed out Clause 10 (iv) and Clause 10 (xiii), which are
extracted hereunder :-
"10 (iv) The bidder, whose EMD has been
forfeited earlier by corporation will not be
eligible for participating in the tender of SFC
for next five year.
(xiii) At the time of agreement, successful
bidder/bidders will have to submit self-attested
photocopies of updated tax-token, road permit,
pollution certificate and insurance certificate
of all leased vehicles to District Manager, SFC.
Failing this, no agreement will be executed
with him/her/them, and he/she/they will be
barred for taking part for next five years in the
future tender forfeiting the deposited EMD at
the same time."
11. Hence, on failure to execute an agreement
providing the necessary documents, there is a provision which
brings in the consequence of forfeiture and blacklisting. The
petitioner had applied under the NIT with open eyes quite
aware of the penalties on refusal to enter into an agreement.
12. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason
to interfere with the order passed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8946 of 2024 dt.06-08-2024
13. The writ petition would stand dismissed.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Shiv/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 07.08.2024
Transmission Date
