IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16448 of 2009 1. UJJAWAL VIKASH SEVA SANSTHAN, Dadar Mandi Guljar Bagh, Patna, through its Secretary Pradeep Kumar son of Ram Anuragh Paswan, resident of Mohalla-Rampurgaon, Bazar Samiti, P.S.-Bahadurpur, District-Patna. 2. PRADEEP KUMAR, son of Ram Anugrah Paswan, resident of Mohalla- Rampurgaon Bazar Samiti, P.S.-Bahadurpur, District-Patna, Secretary, Ujjawal Vikash Seva Sansthan, Dadar Mandi Guljar Bagh, Patna. 3. LAKSHMIPUR MAHILA SILAI KENDRA, Village-Chahalmudera, P.O.- Dharaiya, District-Gaya through its Secretary Chandan Kumari, wife of Abhay Kumar, resident of village-Chahal-Murera, P.S.-Atari, District- Gaya. 4. CHANDAN KUMARI, wife of Abhay Kumar, resident of village-Chahal- Murera, P.S.-Atari, District-Gaya, Secretary, Lakshmipur, Mahila Silai Kendra, Village-Chahal-Murera, P.O.-Dharaiya, District-Gaya. …….Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Collector, Begusarai-cum-Chairman, District-Health Committee, Begusarai. …….Respondents. ----------- 03. 12.01.2010 Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 have challenged the letter dated 12.11.2009 contained in Annexure-4 issued by the District Magistrate, Begusarai. By virtue of this communication, the District Magistrate has raised certain serious reservation about the ability and capability of these petitioners to provide health check-ups to the students of government primary and secondary schools in the District of Begusarai, looking at the very low tender which has been quoted by these petitioners for cornering the contract. Petitioners were directed to deposit a lac of rupee as 2 performance money which was refundable on successful completion of the work. Submission of the learned counsel representing the petitioners is that this demand or obligation being created against the petitioners is contrary to the terms and conditions of the advertisement contained in Annexure-1 since there was no provision of such a demand to deposit a lac of money and, therefore, the petitioners are acting arbitrarily. They have even otherwise stated that they are not in a position to fulfil this demand or condition and they may also be allowed to opt out of the contract. Counsel for the State has filed a counter affidavit and they have stated that the tenders furnished by the petitioners were not bona fide and was probably to frustrate the whole social objective of such a Programme of the government by offering to do the job at a paltry sum of Rs. 75/- as the charges per day for carrying out such health check-ups. The advertisement itself lays down the kind of responsibility and obligation which are to be carried out by the petitioners including furnishing of health card etc to every student. Apparently the price quoted was not with the objective of carrying out the purpose of health camps of the schools but only to corner some monetary benefits from such advertisement. Another give away of the intent and purpose of the petitioners and their seriousness to the scheme is from 3 their stand that the health check-up need not be by M.B.B.S. Doctors but can be by any other Doctor practicing Homeopathy and Ayurvedic stream. In absence of anything specifically indicated in the advertisement, petitioner ought to have been given freedom to carry out the check-ups by such ‘’Doctors’’ as well. It was in this background, to test the bona fide of these petitioners that the respondent authorities decided to demand deposit of a lac of rupee as performance money which was refundable on successful completion of the work under the contract. It is evident from their stand and conduct that they are not bona fide tenderers as they have run away from the responsibility by now challenging the action of respondents before the Court of law. No doubt there is no clause of the kind in the advertisement in award of contract of the kind in question but then the object of the contract has to be achieved by bona fide performance of the contract and the ability of the successful tenderers to shoulder their responsibilities. The social objective of the project can not be allowed to be frustrated by speculative kind of bidding which may have been filed. Merely because petitioners were successful bidders and their bids was low the respondents are not bound to award contract without testing the ability and capability of the petitioners. It has been held by Hon’ble 4 Supreme Court that lowest tender may not be best tender in all situations. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they now want to opt out. Such a submission also fortify the views of the Court that the petitioners are not serious about the tender or contract. It also difficult to accept that the petitioners are not in a position to deposit even a lac of money as a performance guarantee when they have to carry out health check-ups of lacs of students of the District of Begusarai. No case for interference is made out. If they want to opt out of the award of contract they may do. The writ application has no merit and it stands dismissed. Shageer (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)