IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14656 of 2010 SUDHIR KUMAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O SRI ANANDI SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O.TUJARPUR, P.S.KHAIRA, DISTRICT SARAN, CHHAPRA-----------------------------------------------------------PETITIONER Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 2.THE SECRETARY, BIHAR RAJYA PUL NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED,PATNA 3.THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR RAJYA PUL NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED, PATNA 4.THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR RAJYA PUL NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED, PATNA 5.THE CHIEF ENGINEER, BIHAR RAJYA PUL NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED, PATNA 6.THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, SOUTH BIHAR CIRCLE, BIHAR RAJYA PUL NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED, PATNA 7.THE SENIOR PROJECT ENGINEER, BIHAR RAJYA PUL NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED, WORK DIVISION NO.2, PATNA-------------------------RESPONDENTS ----------- For the petitioner :Mr.Binod Kumar No.3, Advocate For the State :Mr.Vinod Kumar, AC to SC 1 For the B.R.Pul Nirman Nigam:Mr.Nadim Seraj,Advocate ------- 2. 06.9.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited. The petitioner prays for quashing the order contained in Memo No.1900 dated 13.8.2010 issued by the Deputy Chief Engineer, South Bihar Circle, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited, Patna under the order of the Managing Director, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited, Patna, by which the bid of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of his being a single bidder and it has been directed to go for re-tender. 2 Shorn of unnecessary details the facts of the case are that a tender notice No.536 dated 20.3.2010 was published in the daily Hindi newspaper ‘Hindustan’ on 2.4.2010 in relation to several constructions to be carried on under the Chief Minister Pul Nirman Scheme. The petitioner applied against Serial No.8 of the tender notice for construction of a Bridge in the district of Saran over river Tel, Naini Paschim Tola along with the approach road for the same. Two other contractors also filed their tenders. The technical bid was opened on 6.4.2010 at 3.30 P.M. in which the petitioner alone was declared successful. Thereafter the petitioner was informed by letter dated 5.6.2010 of the Senior Project Engineer, Work Division No.2, Patna to remain present in the opening of the financial bid on 7.6.2010 in which the petitioner’s offer was 0.5% below the price mentioned in the tender notice. The allegation of the petitioner is that the Senior Project Engineer(Respondent No.7) after opening of the financial bid with oblique motive and mala fide intention started bargaining with the petitioner but on refusal of the petitioner to satisfy him the impugned order dated 3 13.8.2010 was issued by which his tender has been rejected on the ground of his being the single bidder. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 the stand has been taken that after the rejection of the tender of the petitioner a fresh tender was issued on 14.8.2010 and published in the Hindi daily newspaper ‘Hindustan’ on 20.8.2010 indicating bid opening date as 25.8.2010 in which the petitioner has also participated. The petitioner besides another company was qualified in the technical bid and thereafter the financial bid was opened on 30.8.2010 in which the other tenderer M/s. Tirupati Balaji Earth Works Pvt. Ltd. was found to have quoted 9.515% below SOR; whereas the petitioner had tendered 0.051% below SOR and, accordingly, the offer of the other tenderer M/s. Tirupati Balaji Earth Works Pvt. Ltd. was approved. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ground of rejection of the petitioner as being the single tenderer has no legs to stand upon in view of the fact that with regard to another item of the same tender notice dated 20.3.2010, i.e., at Serial No.3, one M/s. Dayal Hi-Tech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. was also a single tenderer and had bid 4 0.42% below SOR and the tender was allotted to the said single tenderer. It is, thus, urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that by playing fraud and adopting double standards the tender of the petitioner was not accepted; whereas the authorities have accepted the tender of the other tenderer in similar circumstances. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that if the authorities had to reject the single tenderer then the same ought to have been done immediately after the technical bid when only a single tenderer was found to have qualified and there could have been no occasion to open the financial tender also so as to let the details of the financial bid offered by the petitioner being known and taken advantage of on the re-tender. Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation is unable to meet any of the aforesaid points raised by the petitioner from the counter affidavit filed on its behalf except to state that the petitioner having participated in the re-tender process and ultimately having been unsuccessful may not be permitted to turn around and challenge the subsequent tender process and take benefit of the earlier 5 tender process in which his bid has been ultimately rejected. While I am inclined to accept the submission of learned counsel for the respondent Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited that the petitioner having participated in the re-tender process cannot be permitted to challenge the result of the same or seek a direction for acceptance of his bid on the basis of the original tender process, but I find that the authorities of the Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited have not acted fairly in the matter of disposal of the original tender. If the authorities did not find anything wrong with the single tender submitted by M/s. Dayal Hi- Tech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. for the works mentioned at Serial No.3 of the same tender notice and awarded the contract to him, then how the said ground could have been raised in the case of the petitioner. That itself shows that something is amiss in the conduct of the authorities of the respondent Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited and the tenders are being allotted on ulterior considerations. Moreover, if the respondent authorities of the Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited proposed to act on the principle of rejecting the tender on the basis of single 6 tenderer having qualified in the bid then there could have been no occasion to open the financial bid to know about the bid offered by the petitioner. The same is a serious mal practice as thereafter in a re-tender it would be open to others to take advantage of the bid offered by the party who was a single successful tenderer after the technical bid earlier. In the present matter, the decision not to offer the contract to the petitioner being a single bidder after opening the financial bid was not just and proper as the said fact was known to the authorities after the opening of the technical bid. The action of the authorities of the respondent Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited is, therefore, reprehensible and fit to be condemned by this Court. In view of what has been held above, the writ application is dismissed but with the aforesaid observations. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/