IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7047 of 2010 SINDHU BHUSHAN MISHRA SON OF LATE JAGARNATH MISHRA RESIDNET OF MABBI DEORHI, P.O. LALSHAHPUR, PS. DARBHANGA DISTRICT DARBHANGA. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION THROUGH M/S. MANAGING DIRECTOR, MANGLES ROAD, PATNA. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTIN CORPORATION MANGLES ROAD, PATNA. 3. THE SENIOR PROJECT ENGINEER, BIHAR STATE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, WORKS DIVISION, PATNA. ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Sanjay Kumar For the respondent Corporation :- Mr. Vikas Kumar ---- 2 23/04/2010 There is a notice inviting tender issued by the respondent Bihar State Bridge Construction Corporation Limited which is annexure-1 to the writ application. Petitioner has decided to challenge clause 5(iii) and (vi) of the stipulations stated therein. Clause (iii) states that the tenderer needs to have an audited turn over of the last three years of atleast 50 per cent of the cost of construction of R.C.C. bridge in which he may be interested to participate. Clause (vi) speaks about registration with the Labour Department as well as Employees Provident Fund - 2 - organization. So far as clause (vi) is concerned relating to registration with the Labour Department and the Employees Provident Fund organization, the petitioner has annexed annexure-2 which is a general notice issued by the Employees Provident Fund authorities which is an answer by itself. If this is the stand of the Employees Provident Fund authorities, then may be insistence for registration with the Employees Provident Fund may not be insisted or enforced. So far as registration with the Labour Department is concerned, the petitioner has given up the issue since he has already a registration with the Labour Department. Challenge to clause 5(iii) on the ground that in terms of the notice inviting tender the respondents authorities have laid down that registration with the Corporation is a must. Registration with other authorities is of no consequence so far as participation in the present notice inviting tender is concerned. His analogy is that if some body has been directed to register with the respondent Corporation for the first time, then he cannot carry experience behind him. - 3 - The two parts to the notice, therefore, are at one conflict if in law allowed. Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that there is no contradiction. Registration with the Corporation is a must but that is only to ensure that registration with other authorities cannot be accepted as the basis for participation in the tender. Registration with the Corporation for the first time does not mean that the contractor concerned will not have any experience behind him. Challenge to clause 5(iii), therefore, is misplaced. This writ application is disposed of with the observation above so far as it relates to registration with the Employees Provident Fund Organisation. Rest of the clause need not be interfered with. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)