IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.832 of 2011 TARUN KUMAR, SON OF LATE NARENDRA NARAYAN SAH, R/O MOHALLA NAYA TOLA, P.O. AND P.S. KATIHAR, DISTRICT KATIHAR…………………………………….PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., SONE BHAWAN, BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA THROUGH THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE BIHAR STATE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., SONE BHAWAN, BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, THE BIHAR STATE FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., KATIHAR. 4. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT COMMITTEE, THE BIHAR STATE FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., KATIHAR THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KATIHAR-CUM-CHAIRMAN. 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KATIHAR-CUM-CHAIRMAN, THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT COMMITTEE, THE BIHAR STATE FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD.,KATIHAR. 6. MANOJ KUMAR, SON OF LATE RAM SUNDAR SINGH, R/O MOHALLA RATANPUR, WARD NO.18, P.O., P.S. AND DISTRICT – KATIHAR. 7. MRITUNJAY KUMAR, SON OF RAM SAGAR SINGH, R/O VILLAGE AND P.O. CHHATAUNA, P.S. NAWKOTHI, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. 8. SRI BALAJI TRANSPORT, DURGAPUR, P.O., P.S. AND DISTRICT – KATIHAR THROGH ITS PROPRIETOR NAMELY SRI SUMAN KUMAR JOSHI…………………………..…RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : M/s S.B.K. Manglam and Anita Kumari, Advocates. For the Corporation : Mr. R.S. Pradhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.N. Rai, Advocate. For respondent no.6 to 8 : Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. K.K. Singh, Advocate. ----------- 14/ 29.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation - 2 - Limited and its authorities as well as learned counsel for private respondent nos.6 to 8. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for direction to the respondents authorities to produce on record the decision of the District Transport Committee, Katihar dated 23.12.2010 and quash the same as by the said decision the names of respondent nos. 6 to 8 were recommended for appointment as Transporting-cum-Handling Agent of the respondent Corporation for Katihar District after rejecting the tender of the petitioner. 3. The said decision dated 23.12.2010 of the District Transport Committee, Katihar is produced by the respondents authorities along with their counter affidavit as Annexure-A series. The said documents show that the tender of the petitioner was rejected on five grounds, namely (i) the envelope in which tender was filed was not sealed, (ii) the petitioner had sent banker’s cheque although he should have sent bank draft, (iii) the required documents were attested by District Superintending Engineer, Katihar although they should have been attested by a Magistrate, (iv) the insurance of the vehicle was not in the name of the petitioner and (v) the chassis number of the vehicle was different in the owner book and the insurance papers. 4. So far the first objection is concerned, there is nothing to show that the said objection was baseless. So far the second objection is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Bank clarification (Annexure-5 to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner) clearly shows that the authorities of the State Bank of India - 3 - specifically held that draft and banker’s cheque were bonafide remittance mechanism of the banks. However, it has also been held therein that draft is a remittance mechanism and hence has to be issued only for remittance to other centres and it should not be issued on other branches at the same centre or used for effecting local payments, whereas Banker’s cheques were to be issued only for local payments. Furthermore, the mode of payment specifically made in the advertisement was bank draft, which was admittedly not done by the petitioner. Hence this was a clear defect in the tender of the petitioner. So far the third objection is concerned, it has been specifically provided in the advertisement that the documents should be certified by Magistrates which having not been done, the authorities cannot be held to have decided the matter wrongly. So far the remaining two defects are concerned, they also cannot be falsified from a plain reading of the owner book and the insurance paper produced by the petitioner, which show that the names are differently stated therein and even the chassis number is not exactly the same. 5. So far the second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, since the petitioner’s claim was justifiably rejected, he cannot legally gain from rejection of the claim of the tender of the private respondents. Furthermore, it is quite apparent from the records that there is nothing to contradict the fact that the tenders of respondent nos.6 to 8 were given in sealed envelope along with bank drafts and the documents were also duly certified. Hence, the main requirements were found to be fulfilled and the minor - 4 - irregularities which created doubt could be legally warded off by the persons concerned on the directions of the authorities concerned. 6. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in acceptance of technical tender of respondent no.7 by the Committee. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Harish (S.N.Hussain, J.)