IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15114 of 2008 1. M/S Kapish Enterprises through its partner Sri Motilal Khaitan, having its Office at Baldeo Place, I st Floor, Benimadhav Lane, Govind Mitra Road, P.S.-Pirbahore, Patna-800004. 2. Motilal Khaitan son of Late Prabhudayal Khetan, resident of F-2D, Pushpvihar, Exhibition Road, P.S.- Gandhi Maidan, District-Patna. …… Petitioners. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary cum Commissioner Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Superintendent, Patna Medical College Hospital, Patna. 4. The Deputy Superintendent, Patna Medical College Hospital, Patna. ……. Respondents. ----------- Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Shekhar Singh. Advocate for the State : Mr. N. K. Sinha, AAG-X. Mr. Md. Anis Akhtar, JC to AAG-X. ------------- 02 02.04.2009 In the Patna Medical College Hospital (PMCH), there is substantial requirement of drugs, medicines and surgical equipments. The tender was issued in that regard, which was responded, inter alia, by the petitioner. Having filed his tender, petitioner states that his signature was taken on a blank paper itself. His technical bid was not even opened in his presence. He did not know thereafter what happened to his tender. He learnt that in respect of certain items his technical bid has been rejected, whereas in respect of certain items, he qualified in the technical bid, but was rejected in the financial bid stage. He then made an application under Right to Information Act, no reply was given. In the interlocutory application a purported reply is annexed, which will be discussed later on. Petitioner then learnt that the tenders were finalized in most arbitrary manner and orders given excluding the - 2 - petitioner. A counter affidavit has been filed duly sworn by the Superintendent of Patna Medical College Hospital. He has annexed the entire proceedings of the tender committee. It is submitted that the high powered tender committee which constituted of from senior doctors of the PMCH had scrutinized the matter. The technical bids were opened in presence of the petitioner and other tenderers in support whereof, the page on which petitioner had signed along with all other tenderers have been appended. A perusal thereof, makes it clear that what is asserted in the counter affidavit cannot be denied. Then are pages dealing with the decision of the tender committee and signed by all the doctors concerned. Petitioner points out that in respect of certain items petitioner’s bid was rejected at the stage of technical bid itself on wrong ground of certain papers etc. not being filed. He submits that all those papers were duly filed but even purposefully ignored by the authority and no information in that regard was given to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State points out that by now the orders having been placed, supplies have already been made and the period is over. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. First, I must notice the submissions with regard to the petitioner’s application under Right to Information Act. Petitioner made an application, it was not responded to in the manner it was supposed to be. - 3 - In the interlocutory application communication filed by the petitioner. The reply, which was subsequently received, has been annexed. This communication has been made by one Raj Kumar, a Clerk in charge of medicine purchase of the PMCH. The absurdity of reply cannot be doubted. The petitioner is, Kapish Enterprises and the letter is in relation to the petitioner seeking information. The reply is that M/s Kapish Enterprises cannot be given information otherwise it would amount to contempt of Court. Absurdity at the highest. This only shows anxiety of this person, who is the in charge of the purchase to deny lawful information. How it is contempt, one does not know. This was an illegal and unlawful reply and was apparently well thought of with the intention to deny information to the petitioner. The authorities of the PMCH would be well advised to take appropriate action against the said person in accordance with law for such unlawful act. Coming to the case at hand from the proceedings, it is evident that petitioner’s case was considered by the tender committee in some matter. He was disqualified at the technical stage. He states that the requisite papers were filed along with the tender, where as the tender committee notes otherwise. This is a dispute that cannot be resolved by this Court in these summary proceedings. But, one thing surely can be said that whenever a technical bid is to be rejected, which bid is an eligible bid, the person whose bid is to be rejected must be communicated the grounds thereof immediately, otherwise he does not know what has happened to his bid. This is the minimal requirement to - 4 - maintain transparency in decision making process. Had the petitioner been disclosed the ground, immediately he could have turn around and showed the tender committee that all papers were therein. He could have disputed the finding. All that right of petitioner was denied. All proceedings remained within the pages of register concealed and kept away from everybody and that is how a government or governmental organization is functioned. In future, authorities would take care that whenever for any deficiency at the stage of technical bid tenders are rejected the reasons thereof must be communicated to the tenderer otherwise there likelihood of allegation of bias, arbitrariness and other similar allegations. Transparency is a part of good governance, which every government also spouses. As noted above, the tender period being over, the supplies already having been made by selected tenderers so no relief can be given to the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances aforesaid. The writ petition, thus, stands disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.)