Abhiraj Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Abhiraj Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging the disqualification of his bids for two tender IDs: 127095 and 127094. For Tender ID 127095, his bid was rejected by the Technical Bid Committee on October 18, 2023, due to a difference in the profit and loss account and gross receipts for the financial year 2020-21, and the absence of a UDI number. The petitioner contended that the difference arose from the addition of 12% GST to the payment certificate amount and that the UDI number was present. For Tender ID 127094, his bid was rejected on November 16, 2023, for alleged misrepresentation and false statements. The petitioner filed representations against these decisions.
Held
The Court held that it could not examine the veracity of the petitioner's contentions due to the absence of crucial documents, namely the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) and the Standard Bid Documents (SBD). The Court noted that without these documents, it was impossible to verify the grounds for disqualification or the petitioner's claims. Regarding Tender ID 127095, the Court observed that the petitioner had filed an objection within the stipulated five working days. However, the lack of NIT and SBD prevented a substantive review. For Tender ID 127094, the Court found that the petitioner's reply did not adequately address the charges of false statement and misrepresentation, focusing instead on allegations against other bidders. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petitioner's contentions and dismissed the writ petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the disqualification of the petitioner's bid for Tender ID 127095 was arbitrary and baseless, considering the petitioner's explanation regarding the difference in financial figures due to GST and the presence of the UDI number, and in light of Clauses 4.3(f), 4.4A(a), and 4.8 of the Standard Bid Document (SBD) and Clause 26 of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT)? 2. Whether the disqualification of the petitioner's bid for Tender ID 127094 on grounds of misrepresentation and false statement was justified, considering the petitioner's reply? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the grounds for disqualification in both tenders were baseless and arbitrary. For Tender ID 127095, he explained that the discrepancy in financial figures was due to the addition of 12% GST and that the UDI number was provided. He relied on the contents of his representation. For Tender ID 127094, he implicitly argued that his reply addressed the allegations. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents. However, it notes that the disqualification for Tender ID 127095 was based on specific clauses of the SBD and NIT, and for Tender ID 127094, it was based on misrepresentation and false statements.
Sections Cited
Clause 4.3(f), Clause 4.4A(a), Clause 4.8, Clause 26
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR) Date : 19-04-2024 The petitioner by filing the present writ petition seeks quashing of the order dated 18.10.2023, as contained in 2/5 letter no. 5816 (Annexure-1), as also the order dated 16.11.2023 contained in letter no.04/484/5912/2023 (Annexure-3) whereby the bid of the petitioner has been declared disqualified by the Technical Bid Committee.
Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order disqualifying the technical bid. The bid of the petitioner was in response to notice inviting tender ID No. 127095 for construction of the RCC Bridge from Bachopatti to Nimahi Path. The bid has been erroneously rejected in the meeting of the Technical Bid Committee on the ground that the papers submitted along with the bid documents with respect to financial year 2020-21, showed a difference of amount under the profit and loss account and in the gross receipts. Besides the same, the petitioner has also not furnished UDI number. In such circumstances, the bid of the petitioner has been found to be not in terms of Clause 4.3(f), 4.4A(a) and 4.8 of the SBD and Clause 26 of the NIT.
It is further contended that the grounds taken for rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner were absolutely baseless and arbitrary. By refuting the allegation, the petitioner filed representation to the Chief-Engineer and other authorities stating therein that the real amount shown in gross receipt is 3/5 3,22,65,525/-, but it comes to Rs.3,61,37,425/- when 12% GST is added, which is payment certificate amount. The difference occurred only due to that. It is also averred that the UDI number is also depicted on serial no.3A of the acknowledgment of Financial Year 2020-21. 4. The further contention of the petitioner is that likewise a second NIT vide Tender ID No. 127094 was also invited by the same respondents for construction of the High Level Bridge, near Gopalpur Muraul, Pokharbhinda in the same manner. However, the bid of the petitioner came to be rejected in the proceeding of the Technical Bid Committee held on 10.11.2023, as contained in Memo No. 5912 dated 16.11.2023. The technical bid of the petitioner has been rejected on account of misrepresentation and false statement.
We have gone through the averments made in the writ petition and the annexures appended to the writ petition. However this Court finds that neither the copy of the NIT nor the standard bid documents have been brought on record, enabling this Court to examine the reasons/grounds which compelled the respondents to come to the conclusion to declare the petitioner as disqualified during technical evaluation of the bid. Moreover the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-1 4/5 with regard to first tender no. 127095, inviting objection on the decision taken by the Technical Bid Committee clearly stipulates that the objection must be filed within five working days. Needless to observe that in opposition to the impugned order dated 18.10.2023, the petitioner filed his objection on 25.10.2023. 6. The disqualification of the petitioner in relation to Tender No. 127094 was an order passed on the premise of giving false statement and misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. This Court has also examined the reply of the petitioner, the copy of which is produced to Annexure-4 to the writ petition. However, on going through the same, this Court does not find any reply of the petitioner to the charges/allegations, except the allegation leveled against other bidders.
In the absence of a proper reply and necessary documents, especially NIT and Standard bid documents, this Court cannot examine the veracity of the contention of the petitioner while exercising the power of judicial review.
In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court does not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner and it is accordingly rejected.
5/5
The writ petition sans any merit is fit to be dismissed. We do so.
uday/- (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) (Harish Kumar, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 22.04.2024 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.