IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3485 of 2010 PRAMOD KUMAR S/O DEV NARAYAN YADAV, PROPERIETOR RASHMI ENTERPRISES, RAN NAGAR, BANGALI TOLA, NEAR DEVI ASTHAN, PATNA-1--------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR INDUSTERIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 1ST FLOOR INDIRA BHAWAN RAMCHARITRA SINGH PATH BORING CANEL ROAD, PATNA 2. THE STATE OF BIHAR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. THROGH ITS SECRETARY, 1ST FLOOR INDIRA BHAWAN RAMCHARITRA PATH BORING ROAD, PATNA------RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Kumar Singh-5,Advocate For the BSIDC (Respondent): Mr.Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Advocate --------- 4 29.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner filed the present writ application seeking a direction upon the respondents to accept the tender of the present petitioner in response to the notice inviting tender contained in annexure-1. The tender was invited by the respondent Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation to sell certain electrical equipments etc. lying in Tatisilwai factory. Petitioner alleged that despite he being the highest bidder tender was settled in favour of one M/s Srivan Exims Private Ltd. At the outset prima facie the allegation made by the petitioner was required to be looked into. Respondents were directed to file counter affidavit and explain the situation. The stand of the respondents is that a minimum reserved price was fixed in the notice inviting tender. In addition to that it was also stated that every participant will have to deposit 10% of the tendered price with their tender to be considered by the respondents. There were five bidders. But of five bidders the three - 2 - did not deposit the minimum 10% of the tendered price. Deposits were made by the petitioner and one Srivan Exims Private Ltd. in whose favour the tender has been settled. The stand of the respondent is that only Srivan Exims Private Ltd. deposited 10% of the rate quoted by them which was Rs. 2, 30,00,000 and the 10% of which was worked out Rs. 23,00,000/-. No doubt, the petitioner quoted the tendered price of Rs. 2,41, 95, 555/- but the earnest money deposited by him was only Rs. 23,00,000/- and that is the primary reason for non-award of the tender in favour of the petitioner. If the petitioner failed to fulfill the requirement then the failure was his and no amount of motive attributed to the respondents can redeem the situation for him. Petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the counter affidavit. He has brought on records the minutes of the tender committee which he has obtained under Right to Information Act. The stand taken by the respondent is reflected from the said annexure which is annexure-A to the rejoinder. He relies on the observation made by the tender committee that even though the petitioner technically did not fulfill the condition but rejection of his bid would not be in financial interest of the Corporation. Therefore the tender committee may consider even inviting the present petitioner. It is the stand of the respondent that the opinion of the tender committee was only an opinion and the higher authority did not agree of that observation. If the tender was otherwise - 3 - invalid due to non-fulfillment of any of the condition then the rejection of the tender was the only answer. It is a fact that successful tenderer was invited and negotiation held. M/s Srivan Exims Private Ltd. was the only successful bidder as per the terms and conditions and he agreed to raise the figure. The opinion of the tender committee did not find favour with the higher authority so the claim of the petitioner was not accepted. If that is so then the allegation made by the petitioner that settlement or award of the tender was made by the respondents at the cost of the financial loss is not borne out. Despite the petitioner being the highest bidder there was failure on his part to deposit requisite 10% of the bid amount. That was the reason for the petitioner not to be given the contract. In view of the explained circumstances by the respondents, corroborated by evidence brought on record both by the respondent as well as the petitioner, no arbitrariness has been established nor any breach of any of the terms of the notice inviting tender, to enable this court to interfere with the decision. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)