IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8703 of 2010 M/S BHOLEY SHANKAR CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the State: Mr. Deganjan Choudhary AC to SC-3. ---------- 2 18.5.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner wants direction upon the respondents to consider his financial bid by accepting his technical bid on giving a go-bye to the clause that the average turn over of the petitioner’s company in the last three years should not be less than 60% of the tender amount, in the background that petitioner’s company has been registered only on 17.3.2009 as class two contractor. Submission of learned counsel is based on the logic that if the petitioner’s company registration has been done only in the last one year it cannot be expected to have experienced of last three years and a turn over not less than 60%. Such a provision comes in the way of participation of an infant company and the contractor of the kind and the petitioner can never get a breakthrough. He further draws the attention of the Court to the clause and the terms and conditions of tender annexed in annexure-3. He submits that clause-4 has to be read in the light of clause-21. Though there is requirement of experience and the turn over for the last three years in clause 4 but clause-21 categorically states that newly registered contractor would be permitted to participate. Petitioner wants to take advantage of clause-21 for acceptance of his technical bid or opening of his financial bid. - 2 - The question which is required to be answered by this Court on the basis of the points raised is whether clause 21 will have a over riding effect over clause-4 and whether the difficulty expressed by the petitioner with regard to his eligibility in the background of his infancy can be a ground for allowing him to participate in the tender. New contractors are not barred from participation in the tender but the new contractor must have the experience and turn over of the kind which is required in clause-4. The problem faced by the petitioner is not unique. Every contractor embarking on a career of the kind start at one point of time or other may grow up to a higher level over a period of time. The terms and conditions of the tender are very clear and unambiguous. If the petitioner cannot over come the same the same cannot be diluted for the benefit of the petitioner because no interpretation of any kind can be granted or given contrary to the terms and conditions which will have the effect to granting benefit to an individual and not to one and all similarly placed and who may not have approached this Court for similar kind of relief. The reasons for rejection of the technical bid are evident from the submission which have been made at the bar and have been answered in the earlier part of the order. There is no merit in this writ application. It is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)