IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13746 of 2010 OM PRAKASH SINGH son of Murlidhar Singh, resident of village- Saur Bazar, District- Saharsa….. Petitioner Versus 1. The Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd, 5th Floor, Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. 2. District Magistrate, Araria. 3. District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Purnea. …… Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Kumar Uday Singh, Advocate For S.F.C.: Mr. R.S. Pradhan, Senior Advocate For the State: Mr. Amitabh Bhardwaj, A.C. to S.C.21 -- 2. 23.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks a direction upon the Managing Director of the Corporation to consider and dispose of his representation dated 12.7.2010 (Annexure-9) for extension of contract in terms of clause 11 of the tender notice and conditions dated 3.2.2009 (Annexuire-1) and also for quashing the tender notice (Annexure-13) inviting a fresh tender for appointment of new Transporting and Handling Agent in the District of Araria. The short facts of the case are that pursuant to earlier tender notice, the petitioner emerged as the successful tenderer and was given a contract of Transporting and Handing Agent for - 2 - Araria District for the period of one year from 11.8.2009. Before the completion of the said period, the petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent authorities for extension of the period of his contract for a further period of one year, which is permissible at the discretion of the Managing Director in terms of clause 11 of the earlier tender notice dated 3.2.2009. Since the same has not yet been disposed of, the petitioner has come to this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, fairly points out that one of the tenderers pursuant to the earlier tender notice dated 3.2.2009 had approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No.2804 of 2010 raising a grievance that the present petitioner was not qualified to get the contract as he did not have the requisite qualification at the time when the contract of Transporting and Handling Agent was given to him. This Court by order dated 15.4.2010 disposed of the said writ petition after considering that the contract was likely to be over in three to four months and a fresh decision will have to be taken for the next year in question with a direction upon the authorities - 3 - concerned that they shall ensure that the proper settlement of the next contract is made in terms of the advertisement which might be required to be issued after the expiry of the present contract. This Court had also observed that the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No.2804 of 2010 had an arguable case but only on account of the short period of the contract remaining, the matter was not considered for disposal on merit. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the respondent authorities of the Corporation have rightly proceeded in the matter by issuing a fresh tender notice so as to award the contract to a person, who is duly competent in terms of the tender notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner now owns three trucks as per the requirement and thus he is fully qualified for the extension of his contract. The said contention itself goes to show that the petitioner might have been awarded the contract earlier although he did not have the necessary qualification and in such circumstances the best course would be to permit a fresh settlement being made among those, who are - 4 - qualified for getting the same. No interference is, accordingly, required to be made with the tender notice published by the respondent authorities. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )