M/S Arun Kumar Kushwaha Through Its Proprietor Arun Kumar Kushwaha vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Secretary/ Principal Secretary Building Construction Department

Held

The Court held that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the assertion that Clause 5.1 of the NIT was violated by Respondent No. 8. The Court noted that the counter-affidavits from the respondents clearly stated that the EMD of Rs. 30,000/- was pledged for the present work after its release from the Electrical Executive Engineer, Electrical Works Division, Ranchi. A certificate from the Sub-Postmaster, District Board, Hazaribagh, further supported that the NSC was pledged with the Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Ramgarh. This was found to be in consonance with Clause 5.1 of the NIT. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in M/s N.G. Projects Limited vs. M/s Vinod Kumar Jain and others, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters and the reluctance of Writ Courts to interfere unless there is total arbitrariness or malafide. Finding no arbitrariness in the decision-making process, the Court declined to accede to the petitioner's prayer.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Arun Kumar Kushwaha, a registered contractor, participated in an e-tender published by the Building Construction Department for the construction of 6 ACR in UPG High School, Ramgarh. The estimated cost was Rs. 68,14,116.00, with an earnest money deposit (EMD) of Rs. 1,36,300.00. The tender was opened on August 4, 2023, after missing the original date. Respondent No. 8, M/s Vijay Kumar Singh, was declared the L-1 bidder, and the petitioner was L-2. The petitioner challenged the technical bid of Respondent No. 8, alleging that the EMD of Rs. 30,000/- was already pledged with another department and that GST clearance was incomplete. The petitioner sought quashing of the Tender Evaluation Committee's decision and the BOQ summary, and for the work to be allotted to them.

Key Issues

1. Whether the technical bid of Respondent No. 8 was liable to be rejected for furnishing an EMD that was allegedly already pledged with another department, thereby violating Clause 5.1 of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT)? 2. Whether the decision-making process of the Tender Evaluation Committee was arbitrary or malafide, warranting judicial interference? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that Respondent No. 8 violated Clause 5.1 of the NIT by using an EMD that was already pledged with the Executive Engineer, Electrical Works Division, Ranchi. They also contended that Respondent No. 8's GST clearance was incomplete. The petitioner asserted that the authorities ignored these irregularities and allotted the work to Respondent No. 8, constituting fraud and malpractices. They relied on the NIT clauses regarding EMD and proper documentation. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State respondents submitted that Respondent No. 8 was declared L-1 after a competitive assessment. They stated that Respondent No. 8 had submitted his bid with a duly pledged EMD of Rs. 30,000/- after its release from the Electrical Executive Engineer, Electrical Works Division, Ranchi, supported by a certificate from the Sub-Postmaster. They claimed the tender process was transparent and the petitioner failed to demonstrate any arbitrariness. Respondent No. 8's Arguments: Respondent No. 8 denied the allegation that the EMD was already pledged elsewhere, asserting that it was furnished for the present work after release. They also claimed to have submitted up-to-date GST returns, supported by a GST report dated June 16, 2023.