IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9378 of 2010 GAURAV KUMAR S/O UDAY PD. SINGH R/O VILL. AND P.S.- HASANPUR, DISTT.- LAKHISARAI ……………. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE LAKHISARAI 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER NAGAR PARISHAD, LAKHISARAI 4. RAJ KUMAR GUPTA S/O LATE RAM CHARITRA SAO R/O WARD NO.- 31, BAZAR SAMITI, LAKHISARAI TOWN, DISTT.- LAKHISARAI …………. Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: M/s.Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate, Lakshmi Kant Sharma,& Rajesh Kumar Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Ambika Bhagat, Advocate For the State:- Mr. : Mr. Binneshwar Pandey JC to GA 6. ------------ 3. 20.9.2010 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Learned Counsels for the State, Nagar Parisad and private respondent No. 4. The petitioner seeks quashing of the selection made by the Nagar Parisad, Lakhisarai making the settlement of Lalu Bus stand in favour of respondent No.4. The Lakhisarai Nagar Parisad issued a notice for settlement of the said Bus Stand on 5-3-2010 in two news papers but pursuant to the same no settlement could be made 2 as less than 3 persons had filed their tenders for participating in the bid. Subsequently another notice for settlement was issued on 22.5.2010 and published in two news papers in which the date of opening bid was fixed for 25.5.2010. Pursuant to the same three persons applied including the successful bidder Respondent No.4 and two others but not the petitioner himself. In view of the fact that the petitioner had not participated in the auction process this Court was inclined to dismiss the writ petition at the outset as not being maintainable at his behest. However considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that he had purchased the tender papers but could not file his bid not only on account of the short period granted in the notice of merely three days but also for the reason that the character certificate was required to be issued by the District Magistrate and he was not in a position to obtain the same within the short time granted; but the authority permitted two other person to participate in the tender process who did not file the Character Certificate issued by the District Magistrate but that issued by the Superintendent of Police. Considering the said plea the writ application has been heard on merit. 3 The petitioner himself was a settlee of the bus stand for the financial years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. Since the settlement could not be made prior to 1-4-2010 the period of his settlement was also extended for one month at a time till 31-5-2010. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that he continued with the settlement at the rate of Rs. 2,920/- per day. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since it had been stated to be an essential condition to deposit the character certificate issued by the District Magistrate, therefore it was not open to the authorities to have permitted the tenderers to participate on the basis of certificate issued by the Superintendent of Police. The stand of the respondents in this regard is that two other persons were permitted to participate on the precondition that they would supply the certificate issued by the District Magistrate in case they become successful in the tender. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that had that condition been known from before he may have participated in the tender process and it is not open to the authorities to make any changes in a condition which they have stated as essential in the tender notice. 4 In support of the same learned counsel relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. The National Airport Authority of India and others: AIR 1979 SC 1628. It is true that it is not open to the authorities to relax an essential condition of a tender but it has also been held in several decisions of the Supreme Court including in the case of Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India: (1994) 6 SCC 651 that if the condition given in the tender notice is not an essential condition, it is open to the authorities to relax the same. In my view since the participants had supplied the character certificate issued by the Superintendent of Police, and in normal circumstances in most organizations it is required to be issued by the Superintendent of Police and not by the Administrative Officers like the District Magistrate, then the relaxation of the said condition for a limited period cannot be said to be bad as the same does not go to the root of the eligibility in the tender process and it is not that the authorities have altogether given up the condition regarding submission of character certificate. This Court finds some force in the submission of learned counsel for the Nagar Parishad that the District Magistrate issues the character 5 certificate only on the basis of the report submitted by the police officials. For the said reasons, this Court does not find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard. The other submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notice period of three days given in the notice is too short and does not fulfill the condition given in Section 374 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 which provides that where any provision has been made for compliance with any order, notice etc., if no period has been fixed then a reasonable time may be granted for the same. According to learned counsel the time granted is not reasonable. In my opinion, the said Section is not applicable to a public notice with respect to which specific provision is made in Section 371 of the Act which merely requires the advertisement to be made in the newspaper. This Court may have been inclined to accept the submission of learned counsel that the notice period of three days may not be reasonable particularly when substantial earnest money or advance amount has to be deposited; in the present matter the same is Rs. 2,66,300/-. However, considering the fact that it was not really a fresh notice but in continuation of the earlier 6 notice published in the newspaper on 5.3.2010, a notice of three days may not be insufficient as parties were already aware that the tender process advertised earlier had not been completed and would be advertised again and in such circumstances, a notice of three days published in the newspaper widely circulated in the area cannot be held to be unreasonable. In the present matter the petitioner himself being a continuing settlee can all the more not be permitted to take any such plea as being directly interested in the outcome of any settlement, he would in all probability have been aware of things the moment that was published in the newspaper and if at all he had any serious intention of participating in the process, he could have done it by depositing the amount in three days time that had been granted. In fact it is not the case of the petitioner that he did not learn about the Notice immediately. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid discussions this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. S.Pandey ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)