IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12062 of 2010 M/S Vayam Technologies Limited, Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi, through its Associate Vice President Jagbandhu Singh, son of Sri K.N. Singh, at present residing at 38, Kamayani Kunj, 69, I.P. Extension, New Delhi-92. .........Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Deputy Director, Higher Education, Human Resource Development Department, Bihar, Patna. .............Respondents For Petitioner :- Mr. S.A. Narain Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocates. With Mr. Laxmi Kant Sharma & S.H Majeed, Advocates For State:- Standing Counsel No. 18 ----------- 08 29.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order contained in letter dated 20.07.2010, by which the Deputy Director Higher Education, Human Resource Development Department, Government of Bihar directed to black list the petitioner’s company from doing any project in the aforesaid Department for three years and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that it is a company dealing with information technology and its related services having its Head Office at New Delhi and since its establishment in 2001 there has never been any complaint against it of any sort and is highly reputed in the business circle. 4. He further submitted that Human Resource Development 2 Department, Government of Bihar published invitation for expression of interest on 19.08.2009 and was short listed for centralized monitoring-cum-date centre of the Department whereafter on 04.10.2009, the short listed tenderers being called for interview through the newspaper, petitioner’s company and other participated in the bid but subsequently the said invitation was withdrawn vide fresh publication of notice dated 18.03.2010 inviting fresh request for proposals in different newspapers as per the revised request giving details of the project. Thereafter, several dealers including the petitioner filed their bids in the prescribed format but this time the petitioner’s company failed to compete as it was second lowest bidder and another firm Radiant Infosystem System Ltd. was selected being the lowest tenderor. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also averred that since the tender paper submitted by the aforesaid firm Radiant Infosystem System Ltd. was delayed as per the notings of the representatives of the Department, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 22.04.2010 to the Secretary of the Department requesting to declare the bid of the aforesaid company as null and void. A similar request letter dated 26.04.2010 was also sent to the Principal Secretary of the Department. 6. In response to petitioner’s letter dated 22.04.2010, the Deputy Director, Higher Education sent letter dated 26.04.2010 to the petitioner informing that the Department had taken a serious view in the matter as the petitioner was attempting to scuttle the due process on false pretext by indulging in malicious and needless 3 correspondence assuming that the said nature of his correspondence was born out from the fact that the petitioner chose to raise the issue after the financial bids were opened on 22.04.2010 and not on the very day the bids were received on 20.04.2010 and that too after the petitioner lost out the bids to M/s Radiant Infosystem Ltd. By the said letter the Department also threatened the petitioner not to indulge in any malicious activity to scuttle the project otherwise the department shall be constrained to initiate legal action against petitioner’s firm, which may also include black listing for future process as well as confiscation of the bid security. 7. In reply to the said letter of the respondents, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Department raising same issues related to the tender in question for the kind consideration of the Department stating that the petitioner being an aggrieved party was seeking justice from the Department and was not trying to indulge in any malicious activity to scuttle the project. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further averred that the said letter of the petitioner was taken very seriously by the Department, who sent letter dated 27.05.2010 to the petitioner alleging that he was needlessly trying to scuttle the process and have behaved unethically and hence he was directed to show cause why he should not be black listed from participating in future tenders and why his bid security money be not forfeited. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his show cause on 14.06.2010. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that thereafter the Deputy Director of Higher Education sent him the impugned 4 letter dated 20.07.2010 stating that petitioner has been reiterating its previous stand again and again and after considering all the facts and circumstances, the Department had decided that petitioner’s company be black listed for doing project in the Department of Human Resource Development Department for three years as it falsely raised allegations against the Department and tried to scuttle the process of tender of centralized monitoring-cum-data center of the Department. Accordingly, the petitioner was informed that his company has been black listed for three years by Human Resource Development Department, Government of Bihar for the said reasons. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that it never behaved unethically as would be apparent from the letters sent by the petitioner to the various authorities of the Department nor it ever tried to scuttle the process of tender, rather it had only tried to seek justice from the Department as it was the aggrieved party and was well within its right in raising grievance, to which it was legally entitled, hence, the impugned action against the petitioner was entirely unjustified. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents stated that the allegations of the petitioner were imaginary aimed at stalling the process of the tender and for that purpose the petitioner wrote a letter without any date alleging that the tender documents of one of the tenderors were accepted after the date fixed, although all the tender documents were received within the stipulated time. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the Department had earlier warned the petitioner not to indulge in 5 such issues for stalling the tender process but even thereafter the petitioner continued raising false and frivolous objections trying to scuttle the process of tender and hence show cause notice was issued to him specifically stating that if he continued to do so, he may be even black listed permanently and his security deposit may be forfeited, but in spite of that in his show cause, the petitioner raised similar issues reiterating the false allegations, hence, the authorities had no option but to pass the order which is under challenge in this writ petition. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents claimed that there was no malifide intention of the respondents, rather when the reply of the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory, the respondent-Department had no option but to pass the impugned order black listing the petitioner’s firm. He also averred that full opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend itself and hence there is no occasion for this Court to interfere in this matter. 14. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record specially petitioner’s letters dated 22.04.2010 (Annexure-4) and 26.04.2010 (Annexure-5) and petitioner’s reply dated 30.04.2010 (Annexure-7) to the letter of Deputy Director as well as the show cause dated 14.06.2010 (Annexure-9) sent by the petitioner to the Secretary of the Department, this Court finds that there is nothing at all to show that any unethical behaviour had been shown or any improper words had been used by the petitioner against any of the authorities of the Department. Hence, the allegation of unethical behaviour of the 6 petitioner alleged in the letter of the Department dated 30.04.2010 appears to be only because the petitioner had addressed his letters etc. to the then Secretary of the Department. The said letters and the show cause sent by the petitioner were in very soft and legal manner using polite words. 15. Furthermore, from the communications between the parties and the materials on record as well as the pleadings in the writ petition and the counter affidavit, it is quite apparent that there is nothing to show that petitioner had ever tried to scuttle the tender process, rather the communications clearly depict that the petitioner had raised objections against the selection process to which he was legally entitled. Hence the intention of the respondents specially of the then Secretary who headed the Human Resource Development Department, Government of Bihar was clearly to gag the petitioner from raising any objection against his actions. 16. This clearly amounts to depriving the petitioner and taking away his right of Trade & Business guaranteed and protected under Article 19 (g) of the Constitution of India, for no obvious or valid reason. The objection of the petitioner might have been good, bad or indifferent and might have been rejected by the authorities, if no merit was found therein, as it was only part of the tender process, but there was no occasion nor there was any reason or justification to show such anger and temperament against the petitioner, who had done nothing except raising objection in a legal manner to which it was legally entitled. 17. Any of such authorities including the then Secretary of the 7 Human Resource Development Department must always keep in mind that they are servants of the people and are appointed to serve for which they are paid from the public exchequer and hence they cannot and should not consider themselves as monarch of all they survey and treat the people as their subjects. They have to act legally even if the allegations against them have been raised and they should not ever try to retaliate against such applicants and punish them for that. They are also not entitled to impose penalties on their own sweet will as they have done in this case, although there was neither any gravity of misconduct nor there was any malicious activity to scuttle the project on the part of the petitioner. 18. Hence, it is quite apparent that in the instant matter, the respondents authorities have acted in a vary high handed manner with irrationality, perversity and procedural impropriety which are recognized grounds for judicial review. Reference in this regard may be made in two decisions of the Supreme Court in case of Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Himanchal Pradesh & Ors. reported in 1983 (2) (SCC) 442 as well as in case of Ranjit Thakur Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 1987 (4) (SCC) 611. 19. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the Human Resource Development Department dated 20.07.2010 (Annexure-1) sent to the petitioner vide letter no. 561 is hereby quashed, with the aforesaid observations. Safik (S.N. Hussain, J.)