Patna High Court
Alok Kumar vs Bihar Urban Infrastructure ... on 18 January, 2024
Bench: Chief Justice, Rajiv Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15621 of 2023
======================================================
Alok Kumar Son of Shri Vinay Kumar Sinha, Resident of Mohalla- Vijay
Nagar, House No. F/40, P.O.- Bahadurpur, P.S.- Patrakar Nagar, District-
Patna- 20, Bihar, Email Id- [email protected].
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Bihar Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (A Govt. of Bihar
Undertaking) through its Managing Director-Cum-Chairman of Tender
Committee, West Boring Canal Road, (Rajapur Pul), Patna, Bihar- 800001.
2. The Managing Director-Cum-Chairman of Tender Committee, Bihar Urban
Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (A Govt. of Bihar
Undertaking), West Boring Canal Road, (Rajapur Pul), Patna, Bihar-
800001.
3. The Chief General Manager-Cum-Member of Tender Committee, Bihar
Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (A Govt. of Bihar
Undertaking), West Boring Canal Road, (Rajapur Pul), Patna, Bihar-
800001.
4. The General Manager-Cum-Member of Tender Committee, Bihar Urban
Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (A Govt. of Bihar
Undertaking), North Bihar Wing, West Boring Canal Road, (Rajapur Pul),
Patna, Bihar- 800001.
5. The Internal Financial Advisor-Cum-Member of Tender Committee, Urban
Development and Housing Department, Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna-15.
6. Rajeev Ranjan and Aurick Construxive (JV) Village and Post-Persa Bazar,
Kurthaul, District Patna, Bihar 804453.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Manish Sahay, Advocate
Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rabindra Priyadarshi, Advocate
Mr. Kanishka Shankar, Advocate
For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 18-01-2024
The writ petition is filed against the award of
Patna High Court CWJC No.15621 of 2023 dt.18-01-2024
2/5
contract to the 6th respondent. The petitioner and the 6th
respondent applied pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT)
dated 18.08.2023 produced at Annexure-P-1. The construction
work which were tendered were that of storm water drainage
system in the districts of Samastipur, Madhepura and Ara. The
instant writ petition is with respect to the work awarded at
Samastipur; which was to the 6th respondent and the petitioner's
tender was rejected on the technical bid.
2. We heard Sri Rajendra Narayan, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Lalit Kishore, learned Senior
Counsel for the respondent. We also heard the Government
Advocate.
3. The petitioner's contention is that the 6th
respondent does not satisfy the conditions in Annexure-P-4,
which is the standard bidding document applicable to joint
ventures. The bid document pursuant to Annexure-P-1 (NIT)
specifically made the standard bidding document dated
24.07.2012
applicable to joint ventures applicable to the NIT. As
is evident from clause 4.4 of Annexure-P-2, it is the submission
of the petitioner that as per the standard bid document, a joint
venture could be of 3 partners including a lead partner, of which
the lead partner should meet 50% of the qualification criteria of
Patna High Court CWJC No.15621 of 2023 dt.18-01-2024
specific clauses mentioned as per clause 5.1 and each of the
remaining partner should meet not less than 25% of the
qualification criteria as per clause 5.2. Clause 5.3 also provides
that in case one of the partners of the joint venture, who is
proposed to be included primarily for financial strength, a
commitment so as to provide liquidity support to the extent of
10% of the value of the contract should be furnished. Insofar as
the lead partner, the 50% is satisfied but the second partner does
not fulfill 25% of the qualification criteria. This makes the 6 th
respondent ineligible, which also has been found by a judgment
of this Court in another NIT of the same year, which judgment
dated 04.08.2023 is produced at Annexure-P-5.
4. The 6th respondent, however, submits that the
judgment in C.W.J.C. No.7687 of 2023 requires reconsideration.
Clause 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 have to be considered together and not in
isolation. The lead partner definitely would have to meet not
less than 50% of the qualification criteria. Insofar as the other
partners of the joint venture, if they are 3, then the 2 partners
other than the lead partner would have to meet at least 25% of
the qualifying criteria. By the use of the word 'however' in
clause 5.3, a joint venture partner proposed to be included,
primarily to provide financial strength, requires only to commit
Patna High Court CWJC No.15621 of 2023 dt.18-01-2024
to provide liquidity support to the project to the extent of 10%
and not satisfy the 25%. It is also submitted that the petitioner
was not qualified in the technical bid since he did not have a
Drainage Pumping Station (DPS), which was one of the
qualifications for the purpose of the instant contract in
Samastipur District.
5. We are not inclined to reconsider the judgment
in C.W.J.C. No.7687 of 2023 dated 04.08.2023 at Annexure-P/5,
which is by a Co-ordinate Bench. We cannot, but also notice
that if the provisions under clause 5 of the standard bid
document are to be considered together; clause 5.4 indicates that
the joint venture should collectively satisfy the qualification
criteria, i.e. 100%. We would not definitely hold on the same
especially since we find that the petitioner had failed in the
technical bid.
6. The petitioner has challenged the rejection of the
technical bid in the writ petition. However, the petitioner does
not aver in the writ petition that the he has a drainage pumping
station. In fact, the specific averment in paragraph 14 is that the
petitioner had submitted tenders for all the 3 works under the
NIT. Since under Group No.2; i.e. the construction work at
Madhepura, clause 4.5A(d) relating to DPS was deleted. It is
Patna High Court CWJC No.15621 of 2023 dt.18-01-2024
also averred that from a perusal of the NIT it is clear that all the
3 works were similar in nature and the tender was submitted in
Samastipur on the impression that in the other 2 works also, the
said clause would be deleted. It is submitted in paragraph 14
that 'the petitioner has not followed the said condition, under
which the technical bid has been declared non-responsive'.
Hence, the petitioner has no case against the rejection of his
technical bid. In that circumstance, the petitioner cannot be
found prejudiced, by the award of the contract to the 6th
respondent. It is for the respondent authority to decide whether
the 6th respondent's joint venture is properly constituted and it is
not for us to examine the same. We, hence, dismiss the writ
petition finding the petitioner to have no locus to challenge the
award of the tender, he being disqualified in the technical bid
itself, not having followed the condition with respect to DPS.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
( Rajiv Roy, J)
sharun/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 22.01.2024.
Transmission Date
