Patna High Court
Amit Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 25 January, 2024
Bench: Chief Justice, Rajiv Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5439 of 2022
======================================================
Amit Kumar Singh, Son of Shri Hira Lal Singh, Resident of Village -
Laxmipur Kakdiyan, P.O. - Dighwarar, District - Saran, Bihar - 841207.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Secretary Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
4. The Officer on Special Duty, Food and Consumer Protection Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Additional Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
6. The Link Well Telesystems Private Limited, 1-11-252/1B, Behind Shoppers
Stop Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500016.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Anjani Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Alok Ranjan, AC to AAG-5
Mr. Ashok Kumar Karna, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 25-01-2024
The petitioner, allegedly in public interest,
challenged the award of a contract by which a System
Integrator (SI) was appointed to supply, install and maintain
PoS devices in the Public Distribution Shops (for brevity,
PDS), based on an application developed by the National
Patna High Court CWJC No.5439 of 2022 dt.25-01-2024
Informatics Centre, (for brevity, NIC). The petitioner was
aggrieved with the manner in which the selection was made,
alleged to be in violation of the guidelines issued by the NIC,
and the pre-qualification having been tailor made, for
selection of the additional 6th respondent, who alone fulfills
the criteria of the Department of Scientific and Industrial
Research (DSIR).
2. The petitioner in the writ petition itself
submitted that four companies had submitted the bidding
documents, from which two were shortlisted, out of which the
6th respondent was selected. The petitioner's contention was
also that the documents submitted by the shortlisted bidders
relied on the apparatus supplied by the 6 th respondent, which
makes the bid a single bid; which could not have been
accepted and had to be repeated. The petitioner in the writ
petition also challenged the order passed in pursuance of a
direction issued by this Court in a similar writ petition.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and perused the records, we were prima facie not
inclined to proceed with the matter, especially noticing the
fact that the entire work had been completed. The petitioner
also made a casual statement that when the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.5439 of 2022 dt.25-01-2024
approached the PDS shop seeking delivery of goods on
cashless payment, the same was denied. There is nothing
stated in substantiation of the said contention but for
producing Annexure-1 extract of the ration card which, it has
to be presumed, belongs to the mother of the petitioner, but,
however, there is nothing stated as to how the petitioner is
entitled to approach the PDS shop on behalf of his mother
especially to carry out a cashless purchase, though he is
included as Serial No. 2 in the ration card.
4. We were also not convinced that Annexure-4
order of this Court accepted the contentions of the petitioner.
On 24.01.2024, after the matter was heard, we directed the
learned counsel for the petitioner to enquire from the
petitioner as to whether he would like to continue with the
writ petition and posted it for the next day.
5. On 25.01.2024, when the matter was called,
learned Senior Counsel Smt. Nivedita Nirvikar appeared on
behalf of the petitioner and sought an adjournment. We
refused and specifically asked the learned Senior Counsel
whether she was informed of what transpired in this Court on
the previous day. The learned Senior Counsel admitted that
she was informed of the same on the previous day and hence,
Patna High Court CWJC No.5439 of 2022 dt.25-01-2024
we proceeded to hear the matter.
6. At the outset, it has to be noticed that the 6 th
respondent has filed an affidavit on 02.01.2023, categorically
stating that on 13.01.2019, the agreement was executed with
the Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna, and on 14.09.2019, the work order was
issued; which documents were produced as Annexure-PR/1
and PR/2. The work of installation was thus commenced, and
e-POS machines were installed at all the PDS shops in the
State of Bihar by 7th of December, 2019, after which, at the
instructions of respondent no. 3, the system has 'gone live'.
The certificate issued by the Department is produced as
Annexure-PR/3. As per the said document, the system 'went
live' as on 01.01.2020 and the implementation of 'Aadhaar
Based FPS Automation for Food and Consumer Protection
Department, Bihar' had been completed. Despite the counter
affidavit dated 02.01.2023, there is no rebuttal filed by the
petitioner to the specific averments therein.
7. In this context, we have to notice that even at
the earlier instance, the petitioner had approached this Court
with C.W.J.C. No. 14048 of 2021 titled as Amit Kumar v.
State of Bihar & Ors. which was disposed of by Annexure-4
Patna High Court CWJC No.5439 of 2022 dt.25-01-2024
dated 06.09.2021. Another division bench which heard the
matter referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in D.N. Jeevaraj Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of
Karnataka & Ors, (2016) 2 SCC 656, wherein the bona fides
of a PIL and the legitimacy of the prayer of issuance of
mandamus was considered. After referring to the judgment,
portions of which were extracted in the order, the Division
Bench observed that the petitioner was content with a
direction to be issued to the authority concerned to look into a
representation which the petitioner would file within a period
of four weeks.
8. Obviously, the division bench was not inclined
to entertain the writ petition filed as a PIL and only as a
matter of indulgence, the petitioner was directed to file a
representation.
9. The representation filed was disposed of by
Annexure-8, which was on 23.11.2021. It is noticed in
Annexure-8 that the petitioner's contention in the
representation was also of a cashless purchase having been
declined by the PDS dealer.
10. The authority has considered the issue, raised
in the representation, at Annexure-8 and has referred also to
Patna High Court CWJC No.5439 of 2022 dt.25-01-2024
the tender process by which the System Integrator was
selected. It has also been mentioned that it was after one year
of completion of the tender process, the challenge has been
raised. We find absolutely no reason to sustain the challenge
raised against Annexure-8 order also.
11. We had cautioned the petitioner from
proceeding with the matter at the initial stage itself. We had
also granted the counsel time to consult the petitioner to
decide on continuing with the matter, after prima facie
noticing that the entire tender process was completed. The
petitioner has chosen to engage a Senior Counsel and further
agitated the cause.
12. We find the attempt to be a publicity induced
litigation, and there is no public interest involved. The
petitioner has taken considerable time of this Court, and on
the finding that it is a clear abuse of process of law, we
impose a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the petitioner to be paid to
the Bihar State Legal Services Authority. The petitioner shall
pay the said amount within a period of one month, and if not,
the Bihar State Legal Services Authority shall be entitled to
proceed for recovery by taking measures similar to recovery
of arrears due on land through the District Magistrate, in
Patna High Court CWJC No.5439 of 2022 dt.25-01-2024
which event the petitioner shall be liable for the charges
incurred for making such recovery, which have to be
recovered by the State.
13. The writ petition stands dismissed with
exemplary costs as above.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
( Rajiv Roy, J)
aditya/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 02.02.2024.
Transmission Date
