IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11169 of 2011 Pratyush Kumar Shukla, son of Late Sri Ajai Kumar Shukla, resident of village and Post Shukla Pipra, P.S. Mohaniya, District-Kaimur (Bhabhua) through its Attorney namely Vindyachal Rai, son of Late Sarvjeet Rai, R/O Village Loharpur, P.S. Muhamadbad, District-Gazipur (U.P.). ….. Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Govt. of India, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Govt. of India, New Delhi. 3. National Highways Authority of India through its Chairman, G-5 & 6, Sector 10, Dwarika, New Delhi-110075. 4. The Chairman, National Highways Authority of India, G-5 & 6, Sector 10, Dwarika, New Delhi-110075. ….. Respondents. --------------- For the petitioner : M/s. Naresh Dikshit & Vivek Anand Amritesh, Advocates. For respondents : M/s Pushkar Narain Shahi & Sanjay Kumar, Advocates. ------------ 05/ 05.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents- Union of India and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs: (i) In the nature of “Certiorari” for setting aside the Bid Invitation Notice published on the website of the National Highways Authority of India whereby and whereupon the respondents have invited tender for collection of Toll Tax/ User fee at KM26/200 at Matihi Toll Plaza for the section from km 0/000 to Km 69/500 (Muzaffarpur-Darbhanga) of National Highways no.57 in the State of Bihar. (ii) In the nature of “Mandamus” commanding the respondents to adopt on line bidding as per the direction of the Hon’ble Allahabad Court, Lucknow Bench passed in Writ Petition No.5018 and 2005. (iii) For any other relief/ reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the - 2 - said Notice Inviting Tender to check the involvement of Mafia or Mafioso or members of organized gangs in the railway contracts, there was Patnaiak Committee Report (not annexed by the petitioner) which was followed by a Single Judge of Allahabad High Court in case of Chandrika Prasad Nishad Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2006 (24) LCD 1243. He also relies upon paragraph 101 of the said decision in which it was observed that Patnaik report may be enforced forthwith in which it was provided that no contract should be accepted unless the contractor furnishes a character certificate given by Superintendent of Police or Senior Superintendent of Police of the District concerned as well as the District Magistrate of the District concerned relating to antecedent of the contractor as well as financial capabilities to do the contractual work and the Government may provide necessary format for that purpose. He submits that in the main Notice Inviting Tender no such character certificate has been directed to be produced by the tenderer, as is apparent from clause (C) (a) of the said tender. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents claimed that the impugned Notice Inviting Tender was issued on 25.04.2011 (Annexure-1) and a corrigendum to it was issued on 23.05.2011 (Annexure-1 series), whereafter the date of sale of bid documents concluded on 06.06.2011, which were to be submitted by 07.06.2011. It is also stated that several persons applied and the technical bids were opened on 17.06.2011 and now the financial bid has been opened and it is in the process of completion. Learned counsel for the respondents also stated that the petitioner has not even - 3 - filed his tender and has filed this application only to disturb the process although he has got no locus standi for the same. 5. Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record it is quite apparent that the principles for the said contract has to be led by the concerned government and the procedure have to be prescribed by the authorities and only thereafter this court can see the legality or otherwise of the same and pass relevant orders in this regard. 6. In the table of contents attached to the notice it is specifically provided that several declarations have to be made by the tenderer including clause 6, 9, 10 and 11 which are as follows:- “6 . I/ We declare that: (a) I/We have examined and have no reservations to the RFP document, including any Addendum issued by the Authority. (b) I / We have not directly or indirectly or through an agent engaged or indulged in any corrupt practice, fraudulent practice, coercive practice, undesirable practice or restrictive practice, in respect of any tender or request for proposal issued by or any agreement entered into with the Authority or any other public sector enterprise or any government, Central or State; and 9. I/ We certify that in regard to matters other than security and integrity of the country, we have not been convicted by a Court of Law or indicted or adverse orders passed by a regulatory authority which could cast a doubt on our ability to undertake the work or which relates to a grave offence that outrages the moral sense of the community. 10. I / We further certify that in regard to matters relating to security and integrity of the country, we have not been charge-sheeted by any agency of the Government or convicted by a Court of Law for any offence committed by me or by any of my/ our Associates / partner(s) member(s)/ director(s). 11. I /We further certify that no investigation by a regulatory Authority is pending either against me/us or against my/our Associates/ partners. - 4 - 7. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid declarations, it is quite apparent that the authorities concerned have taken appropriate measures for ousting the involvement of any Mafia or Mafioso or member of organized gangs, as the authorities will have to verify the said undertakings and if it is found to be false, appropriate action can be taken against such persons. Hence, the said provisions cannot be waived of merely as self declaration especially when obtaining a certificate from relevant authorities may create further complications and difficulties for the genuine applicants. 8. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. Sunil/ (S. N. Hussain, J.)