PATNA, India, Sept. 22 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Aug. 22:
The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation, in which the petitioner has challenged the decision of the Tender Bid Committee dated 23.12.2024 contained in Memo No. 7729 qualifying respondent no. 6 in the Tender Invitation Notice No. 02 SBD/2024-25 floated for construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan in Mor Panchayat under Mokama Block in the district of Patna. The petitioner has also prayed that the respondent no. 4 be directed to strictly adhere to the eligibility prescribed in the tender document and reevaluate the technical bid. The petitioner has further prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued to respondent authority directing to conduct an independent enquiry in the matter with regard to allotment of tender to respondent no. 6.
2. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned AC to AG for the State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers the averments made in the memo of petition and thereafter mainly contended that the respondent Executive Engineer, Local Area Engineering Organization, Works Division -01, Patna invited tender for construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan in different Panchayats in the district of Patna by publishing an advertisement in Dainik Jagran Newspaper on 04.07.2024. The last date for submission of bid was 01.08.2024. Thereafter, the concerned respondent authority invited a subsequent tender in respect of the earlier tender vide Re-tender Invitation Notice No. 02 SBD/2024-25 for construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan in different Panchayats in the district of Patna by publishing an advertisement in Hindi edition of Hindustan Newspaper on 02.11.2024.
4. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the concerned respondent authority issued a corrigendum on 12.11.2024 whereby, concerned respondent authority intimated the change in the date for uploading the tender document, pre-bid meeting, last date for uploading the tender document and the date for meeting of Technical Bid Committee. Another corrigendum was also issued on 15.11.2024, whereby the name of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan where the construction of building was to take place at Trimuhan Panchayat in Ghoswari Block which was notified and published in newspaper, was substituted to Mor Panchayat at Mokama Block in the district of Patna.
5. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan at Mor Panchayat in Mokama Block of Patna district was never advertised nor published either in the original notice inviting tender or retender invitation notice and the submission of name of Mor Panchayat in place of Trimuhan Panchayat in Ghoswari Block by a mere corrigendum without advertisement after pre-bid meeting, is not permissible and the said decision taken by the respondent authority is arbitrary and illegal. It is submitted that the petitioner is resident of the said locality and being a social worker, he has filed the present petition in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation, challenging the decision taken by the respondent authorities. Learned counsel, therefore urged that the present petition be allowed by quashing and setting aside the decision taken by the respondent authorities.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent /State has opposed the present petition. It is contended by learned counsel that, in fact, the present petition which has been filed in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable, as the petitioner has challenged the decision taken by the concerned Technical Bid Committee. Learned counsel has pointed out from the record that on 23.12.2024 in the meeting of the concerned committee, technical bid of six parties were opened and it has been recorded in the decision taken by the said committee that two bidders were qualifying i.e. respondent no. 6 and another, namely, Ram Sagar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. whereas, the bid submitted by four other bidders were rejected. It is submitted that the aggrieved parties whose bid has been rejected, has not filed any petition challenging the said process. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also failed to point out as to what is the public interest involved in the present tender matter and, therefore, this Court may not entertain the present petition.
The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjNDA3NCMyMDI1IzEjTg==-wumsmieAejk=
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
