IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13969 of 2007 DEEPAK KUMAR SINGH son of Sri Ram Anootha Singh, resident of village Vir Kunwar Singh Colony, Pokhara Mohalla Hajipur,P.S.Hajipur,district- Vaishali. Versus 1. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER ,through State Election Officer, Mangals Road, Patna. 2. State Election Officer, Manglas Road, Patna. 3. District Election Officer-cum-Collector,Vaishali at Hajipur. 4. Manoj Kumar ,Proprietor of M.K.S.Enterprises,Patna. 5. MZC Private Sollution,Patna. 6. BICS,Patna - - - - - - - --- For the Petitioner : M/s Ajay Kumar Thakur and Md. Imteyaz Ahmad. For the Official respondents : Mr.J.P.Karn For the private respondent no.4 : Mr.Surendra Pd. Singh. 5 20.10.2008 Petitioner has challenged the rejection of his tender and consequntally the selection of respondent no.4 for the job of prepation of identity cards as tendered by the District Election Officer-cum- Collector,Vaishali at Hajipur. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of District Election Officer and pursuant to issuance of notice to the selected tenderer- respondent no.4, he has appeared and filed a counter affidavit. A reference to earlier orders of this Court dated 24.7.2008 and 19.8.2008 may be made. State was granted opportunity to take instruction and file a counter affidavit wherein certain facts have been noted. With the consent of the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. In the district of Vaishali in the newspaper , an - 2 - advertisement was issued with regard to appointing persons with requisite experience for preparing photo identity cards for election purposes. In the said advertisement , it was stated that the tender documents were avaiiable on the website noted therein.Petitioner was desirous of participating in the said tender but having found that though the advertisement was on the website , the tender document was not to be found therein he went to the District Election office and purchased the tender documents. Having purchased the tender document, he filled up the same as per requirements mentioned therein and filed the same. His tender was rejected on the ground that several documents , which were required to be filed, had not been filed and thereafter respondent no.4 was selected and his tender was accepted pursuant thereto. He deposited a security of Rs. 50,000/- and an agreement was entered into between him and the respondents but no further step has been taken in the matter. Petitioner’s assertions are that the documents, for which, his tender has been rejected, were not the documents mentioned in the tender papers as sold to him. He had complied with the requirements, as contained in the tender papers as sold to him. As would be noticed from the earlier two orders of this Court, it was virtually conceded on behalf of the State that the additional documents, in absence thereof petitioner’s tender was rejected, were not specified in the tender documents as sold to the petitioner. They were notified on the Notice Board but admittedly neither a corrigendum was issued in the newspaper nor petitioner was informed about the additional - 3 - documents, which were not mentioned in the tender form as sold to the petitioner. The tender documents have been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 5 and it is not in dispute that the petitioner complied with the same. The additional documents do not form part of the tender documents. Thus, on these facts, it is clear that the petitioner has been wrongly excluded from consideration .Once the authority decided to sell tender documents then it was their responsibility to see that the tender documents are updated in all respects or for, noting therein that before they are filed, tenderer must have precaution of enquiring into other additional documents or formality required to be completed. No such step was taken. This, in my view, cannot lead to disqualification of the petitioner. Thus, petitioner was wrongly excluded This, in my view, vitiates the entire selection process including the selection of respondent no.4. Once the selection process stands vitiated, then the selection of respondent no.4 and the agreement entered into also stand vitiated. Thus, the writ petition is allowed with liberty to the respondents to re-tender the matter and take a decision thereon in accordance with law. singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh)