IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16535 of 2009 SANJIV KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3 8.1.2010 Heard. Petitioner decided to file the present writ application when the Respondents-State authorities by ignoring the earlier notice inviting tender as contained in Annexure-1 went for a fresh notice inviting tender for construction of Animal Husbandry Hospitals to be located at Parsouni and Surajgarha in the district of Lakshisarai. Petitioner claims himself to be the exclusive bidder. There were three bidders. Two of them incurred disqualification because they had no valid registration with the Department and, therefore, the petitioner was the only and exclusively eligible bidder pursuant to the first notice inviting tender. Still, no final decision was taken in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner approached the Department at the highest level, but nothing was communicated to him till he came across the second advertisement inviting fresh tender which is Annexure-5 to the writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second notice as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application ought to be interferred with and the respondents be directed to finalise the tender on the basis of the first publication. Prima facie, when the matter was first argued in 2 absence of any material available on record, action of the respondents looked arbitrary devoid of any reason. But, now a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and they have brought on record the reasons for going for re- tender. It has been stated on behalf of the State that there were only three tenderers. Two of them were found ineligible due to lack of registration with the Department and that was done at the time of scrutiny of the tenders. Not only that, it was also found that effectively the petitioner was the only elegible candidate whose tender was in order, but his rates were found to be very high vis-à-vis other tenderers. In totality, therefore, the respondents-State was left with only two options, either to squander away the resources of the State by awarding the work on the basis of the tender of the petitioner, or re-invite further participation from other eligible candidates by going for re- tendering. An Intervention petition, namely, I.A.No.8069/2009 has been filed by one Ajay Shankar Singh. He has his own story to tell. His stand is that he had all the elegibility, but certain documents were withheld from the Tender Committee to ensure that the intervener was dis- qualified and ousted from consideration. Mischief was done by some persons within the Department and when these facts were brought to the notice of the Department, action had been 3 taken against them. He prays for a direction upon the respondents to consider his tender based on the first advertisement. The Court has no hesitation to reject the I.A.No.8069/2009 for the simple reason that the intervener if he was keen in begetting relief from the Court on the materials available, he should have filed a separate writ application and prayed for relief in the present writ application instead by intervention. But, the Court has had one advantage by the assistance of the intervener. Obviously the tendering process, which was undertaken in the first tender did not achieve the desired result and object of public tender. The respondents were left with only one eligible tenderer with high rates. The Court has no hesitation in recording that there were adequate materials and reasons available for the respondents to go for a re-tender as per Annexure-5 for the benefit of people at large and to ensure fullest utilisation of resources which the State has in its hands. The petitioner has not made out a case for interference coupled with the fact that there are people who have participated and made their bids based on the second tender. They have also been opened and evaluated. The stand of the State is that they have found reasonable offers coming from eligible persons in this regard and work is being 4 finalised. The petitioner does not deny that he had chosen not to participate in the second re-tender and that also goes against him. I.A.No.8069/2009 is, accordingly, dismissed. The writ application has got no merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. SKBOSE (Ajay Kumar Tripathi)