lon r'.s**?!^' . y C^-' f ^ ".S&Sc—" ws^^ 'ay IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 4 S'3 OF 2010 (DB) CONTRACT MATTER WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OFAWRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION AND/OR A SUITABLE DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER PETITIONER - ^ ^ ^•*1 ^-," ^. ;^ \'^o::~z^fi^'. ^'..^^^•- .0..'•""' --"^"^"" ,,;'.nc^-'' ^•" isf' /- M/s First Mile Stone, D.C.F. Bilaspur, Authorize representative Abdul Akhtar S/o Abdul Bashir, aged about 32 years, l-1ead office Charch Road, Frezurpur, Jagadalpur, Present Address Om Nagar Jarhabhata, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) .'i'y RESPONDENTS aS^ l!p"" VERSUS , 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Departmenf; D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) -^. The Collector, and District Project Coordinatoi, National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme Chhattisgarh District - Bastar (C.G.) ^3. The Zila Panchayat, Through: Chief Executive Officer, Jagadalpur, District Bastar (Chhattisgarh) 4. M/s V.M. Tecno- Soft. Pvt. Ltd. Avanti Vihar, Raipur, Through - Director Vipin Malik, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) DETAILS OF THE PETITION i^il^, HIGH COUKT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DB: HON'BLE l.M. QUDDUSI & HON'BLE N.K. AGRAWAL, JJ WRIT PEyriTION (C) No.459 OF 2010 Vs. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA APPEARANCE: Mr. Sandeep Dubey, counsel for the Petitioner. Mr. ^/unlesh Bajpai, Panel Lawyer, for the State/respondents 1 & 2. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for respondent no.4. JUDGMENT (29.07.2010) ^t-y' Per LM. QUDDUSI 1. The petitioner which is a registered firm participated iu fhe tender proceedings pursuant to Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) issued on 22.10.2009 by respondent no.3 i.e., Chief Executive Officer, Distt. Panchayat, J^dalpur, Distt. Bastar, for executing fhe work of nnlinc Data Entry ia Monitoring Information Systeia uuder the uational Rural Employraent ^ Guarantee Scheme. It was mentioned in the NIT fhat fhere will be three envelopes to be subnutted by the tenderers. The first envelope contams EMD, the second one contains technical offer and fhe last one contaius financial offer. The process for openiag fhe tenders was prescribed, accordiug to which, fhe first envelop EMD will be opened aad ifit is found \ / . PETmONER M/s First MUe Stone, D.C.F. BUaspur RBSPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and ofhers fit, the second envelope of tecluucal bids will be opened aad after finding fhe technical bid in accordance with the requraite qualification/experience then the finaitcial bid wiU be opened aad fhe lowest bidder wiU be caUed upon for perfonaiBig the contract works. but ia fbe iastant case oiily four tenderers iacluding the petitioner and respondent no.4 have participated, out of which, two were rejected after openiag the first envelop and the ofher two that is petitioner aad respondent 4 reiaamed in fhe field but instead of opening the techiucal bid first, respondent no.3 opened techiiical bid as weU as the fiiiancial bids togefher aud thus violated the tender conditions and prepared a comparative chart but fhe foUowing was found fi'oxa the note sheet : •^Rpf cpricfi 3 ^ 4 ^ -^Rfer f^teiani cpr ^raf cpi meFT q?^ vcf flcp.flcpi y'hl.Rlcb';"! 31 (R ^R '^ter? Rpqi uff.Tf U'WlRct tl 'gcRT ^Nt vS cpr ^ct'ii'fltt' R<i~<ui PtMRtRsiri ti ^IRlcR ^d'llcHct' to?°I ^f 3TOR ^R Ist.Mile Stone, Frezerpur.Jagdalpur cft ^ 5,31,550,00 CCT^ 11ra crra SCRft'ff ?UIR ^ ^t TreIRI ) T(ra ''^cW ^pnft 'g'RT TN ^T y'«i,[a<t>'<ui •<ia1quiiq> '•^ '^r l - • \ b Z .^^..—...-.( S.No. Work V.M. Techao Soft. Pvt. Ltd. AvanU Vibar 1" MUe Stone, Frezerpur, Jagdalpur 1. NREGA MIS Offline SERVER (Preparation) Rs.7,500.00 per SERVER Rs.8,500 per server 2. NREGA MIS Offline CLIENT (preparation) Rs.2^300.00 per Client Rs.450.00 per CLIENT 3. Wage List 8s Wage Slip Software Rs.4,000.00 per Janpad (4,000 x 13 = 52,000) Rs.4,800.00 per Janpad (4800 x 13 = 62,400) 4. Annual Senrice Contract Rs.48,000.00 per month (5,76,000 Annual) Rs.38,350.00 per inonfh (4,60,200 (Annual) Total 6,37,500.00 5,31,530.00 .•' e l^ The note sheets were obtaiaed by the petitioner under Right to lufonnation Act. Though the petitioner was the lowest bidder, but the contract was given to respondent no.4 under one pretext or fhe other. We are conscious fhat titie scope of judicial review is veiy limited but when we see fhat respondent no.3 had itself violated the tender conditions aad iastead of opening the technical bid first, opened bofh fhe techiiical and financial bids together, the arbitraiy action on the part of respondent no.3 cannot be ruled out and fhus ttds Court is inclmed to iaterfere ia the matter. In Mecrat Deaelopment AuthorUg V. Assotrftitton o/ SSanagement Studtcs 3009 AOt SCW 4623 the Supreme Court lield as under: "There is no difliculty to hold that fhe aufhorities owe a duly to act fau-ty but it is equatly weU setUed in judicial review, fhe Court is not concemed wifh the merits or correctness of fhe decision, but wifh the maaner iu which the decision M taken or thc order is made. The Court cannot substitute its own opinion for ttie opuiion of the auttiorily decidiag fhe matter. The distinctfon between appellate power aad judicial review is weU known but needs reiteration. By way of judicial review, the Coiirt caiuiot examiae fhe dctails of fhe terms of the contract which have been entered into by the pubUc bodies or fhe State. Courts have mherent lunitations on the scope of any such enquiry. If the contract has been entercd into wifhout ignoring fhe procedure which cau toe said 's&s^^s'.c- W!"-' 4. to be basic iu nature and ater an objective consideration ofdifferent options availabk tnlring iato account the iuterest of the State and pubUc, then the coiut cannot act as an appellate court by substituting its opiniou in respect of selcction naade for entering iato such contract But at fhe same tuae the courts can certainly exanime whefher 'decision inakmg process' was re^onable, rational, not arbitraiy aad violative of Ardcle 14". See Sterliag Coiaputers Limited, 1993 AIR SCW. The Supreme Court in the said case while rcfcrriag fhe decision rendered ia Tata CeUuIdr -Vs- O'nton of Jndto ASt 1996 SC 11 reiterated fhat fhe judicial quest in adiniiustrative niatters is to stnke fhe just balaace between fhe administratLve discretion to decide inatters as per Govenunent PoUcy, and the necd offaimess. Any uafaimess action inust be sct r^ht by judicial review. In the result, we are of fhe opinion fhat as soon as the agreeinent was executed on 10th of November, 2009 aad the writ petition was filed on 28th ofJanuaiy 2010 and about 7S% work has already been executed, it would not be proper for this court to disturb fhe work as it witt affect aot only fhe public exchjequer of fhc general public and the developiueut of the State. However, we dispose of fhe writ petition with a diTectioa to fhe CoUector to conduct an enquuy into the couduct of fhje ofl&cials iavolved and submit fhe report to the State Goveminenfc'On this, the State Govenunent shad take appropriate action ia accordance wifh law. However, it m.ay also be open for fhe petitioner to claim dam^es and it wffl also be open for respondent^io.3/ Thc District Paiichayat ^o IL.—-^ -.T'— 1 that ia case the conipensation is to be paid, the same may be recovered fioia fhe erring officials. 5. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. AgrawaS Judge Rao