Anil Kumar Prasad vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Anil Kumar Prasad, filed a writ petition challenging his disqualification by the Tendering Authority in a tender process. The disqualification was based on the Tendering Authority's finding that the petitioner's submitted document, Annexure-P/4, did not represent a completed work but an ongoing one. The petitioner contended that Annexure-P/4 was a completion certificate. The respondents, represented by the State of Bihar and its departments, argued that Annexure-P/4 lacked crucial details, such as the name of the person who completed the work and the dates of completion, rendering it unreliable. The document, while certifying completion and handover, had blank spaces for dates.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition was misconceived. The primary issue revolved around the validity and evidentiary value of Annexure-P/4, which the petitioner relied upon as a completion certificate. The Court found merit in the respondents' argument that Annexure-P/4 was critically deficient. Specifically, the Court noted that the document did not specify who was awarded the work or who completed it. Furthermore, although it certified completion and handover, the crucial dates for completion were left blank. This lack of essential information rendered the document unreliable as proof of completed work. Consequently, the Court found no reason to entertain the writ petition and dismissed it in limine.
Key Issues
1. Whether Annexure-P/4, as submitted by the petitioner, constitutes a valid completion certificate for the purpose of the tender process, thereby satisfying the requirement of having completed the work? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of tender conditions and the evidentiary value of Annexure-P/4). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that Annexure-P/4 was a completion certificate and should be accepted as proof of completed work. Respondents' contention: The respondents argued that Annexure-P/4 was deficient and lacked essential details, such as the name of the contractor and the dates of completion, making it unreliable and insufficient to prove that the work was completed. They contended that the blank date fields undermined its validity as a completion certificate.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 26-07-2024 Heard learned counsels for the parties.
The petitioner before us, relying on Annexure-P/4 which he has submitted before the Tendering Authority, contends that it is a completion certificate. However, the Tendering
Patna High Court CWJC No.11157 of 2024 dt.26-07-2024 2/2 Authority has disqualified the petitioner on the ground that it is not a completed work and it is an ongoing work.
At the admission stage itself, learned Assisting Counsel to the Additional Advocate General on behalf of the respondents points out that the details are totally absent in the Annexure-P/4. Annexure-P/4 does not show the person who has been given the work or who has completed it. Though it certifies that the work was completed and handed over, the place where the dates are to be filled up is left blank. The reliance placed on this document is the foundation of the writ petition, which we find to be misconceived.
In such circumstances, we see absolutely no reason to entertain this writ petition.
Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed in limine. Nishant/- (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) (Nani Tagia, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 29.07.2024 Transmission Date NA
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.