Jharkhand High Court
New Gargi Foundry Chemicals vs Steel Authority Of India Limited on 25 October, 2021
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 4247 of 2021
New Gargi Foundry Chemicals, Bokaro, through its partner, Badri Narayan
Pandey ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant, through its Director In-
Charge, Bokaro
2. The Executive Director (Material Management), Steel Authority of India Ltd.,
Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro
3. The Deputy General Manager (Purchase), Steel Authority of India Ltd.,
Boakro Steel Plant, Bokaro
4. Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority, Bokaro Region, through its
Regional Director, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro
..... Respondents
-----
CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sumeet Gadodia
For Respondent Nos.1-3: Mr. Piyush Chitresh
For Respondent No.4: Mr. Akash Deep
-----
02/25.10.2021 I.A. No. 6060/2021
The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking direction upon the concerned authorities of the respondent- SAIL not to allot the work in question to any other bidder in pursuance of bid invitation being B.I No. P13/578/5000042958 dated 04.08.2021 till disposal of the writ petition.
Mr. Sumeeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner, while pressing the present interlocutory application, submits that the respondent-SAIL is regularly required to purchase 'Purging Plug Refractory Set F/SMS-II' and in the said background, the respondent-SAIL adopted the process of limited tender and issued the bid invitation dated 04.08.2021 to the petitioner to participate in the said limited tender for supply of the aforesaid item. It is further submitted that apart from being a registered vendor of the respondent-SAIL, the petitioner is also having its unit situated at Bokaro Industrial Area and it is entitled for a purchase preference to the extent of 70% of the tendered quantity, provided that it agrees to supply the aforesaid tendered quantity at the rate quoted by the lowest bidder. The said facts are admitted and there is no dispute in respect 2 of the same. The petitioner being a registered industrial unit and a local SSI Unit was entitled for purchase preference in the matter of awarding the work by the respondent-SAIL which had been regularly followed by the respondent-SAIL in the past. However, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, the respondent-SAIL authorities in respect of the present limited tender dated 04.08.2021, in a most illegal and arbitrary manner, have technically disqualified the bid of the petitioner without even communicating the reason for such disqualification. It is further submitted that on 12.10.2021, pursuant to the bid invitation dated 04.08.2021, the respondent-SAIL initiated process of reverse auction, however, the petitioner was neither allowed to participate in the said reverse auction process nor any information was given to it in that regard. Since the respondent-authorities were undertaking the process of reverse auction without inviting the petitioner to participate in the reverse auction, it filed representation before the respondent No.2 requesting the said authority to allow it to participate in the reverse auction and/or to clarify the reason for which it was not allowed to participate in the reverse auction. Despite filing of the representation dated 12.10.2021, no reason was assigned whatsoever as to why it was not allowed to participate in the reverse auction. Under the said circumstance, the petitioner's representative visited the office of the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 where he was verbally informed that the petitioner was not allowed to participate in the reverse auction process as its application regarding change in constitution of the partnership firm is pending before the respondent-JIADA. It is thus submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner may be given interim relief in the matter and the respondents may be directed not to award work to any other bidder in pursuance of the bid invitation dated 04.08.2021 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition).
Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1-3, submits that complaints were received from the other bidders against the petitioner alleging that it participated in the bid process in collusion with certain bidders 3 and thus involved itself in bid rigging. He, however, prays for and is allowed four weeks' time to seek instruction and file counter affidavit.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties on the present interlocutory application, it is ordered that the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are at liberty to finalise 30% of the tendered quantity for supply of 'Purging Plug Refractory Set F/SMS- II' in pursuance of Annexure-4. However, so far as 70% of the supply quantity is concerned, the same shall be kept in abeyance, subject to the final outcome of the present writ petition.
The present interlocutory application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) No. 4247 of 2021 Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as well as Mr. Akash Deep, learned A.C to Dr. A. K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.4, pray for and are allowed four weeks' time to seek instruction and file respective counter affidavits.
Put up this case on 08.12.2021 under the heading 'For Admission'.
Satish/- (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)