Jharkhand High Court
Ace Integrated Solutions Pvt.L vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 28 August, 2012
Author: Narendra Nath Tiwari
Bench: Narendra Nath Tiwari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 1421 of 2012
ACE Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Pataparganj Industrial Area, Delhi, through its
Executive Director, Sri Ravi Ranjan Prasad & Another ..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Jharkhand represented through the Principal Secretary, Department of
Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Ranchi & Others
..... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI
-----
For the Petitioners - Mr. P.A.S.Pati
For the Respondents - M/s Sohail Anwar (Sr. Adv.), M.S.Mittal (Sr. Adv.)
-----
3/28.8.2012In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the Letter No.2 dated 29.2.2011 issued by the respondent No.4 informing the petitioners that the financial bid submitted by the petitioner No.1 cannot be considered in view of Section IV Clause (1) of the Tender Notice. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction on the concerned respondent to award the tender to the petitioner No.1, as it has been declared as the lowest tenderer.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that refusal to accept the petitioners' tender is wholly arbitrary, illegal and the same is not sustainable.
The respondents have opposed the writ petition stating, inter alia, that there is no merit in the writ petition. There was no arbitrariness or illegality in issuing the impugned order. On plain reading of the impugned order, it clearly demonstrates that objection of the other tenderers were considered and the tender as well as the relevant documents submitted by M/S ACE Consultants, Patparganj, New Delhi was throughly scrutinized and considered. It was found that M/S ACE Consultants is not registered either under the Indian Companies Act or under the Partnership Act. It has been shown as a division of M/S ACE Integrated Solutaion Pvt. Ltd. which is said to be a registered Company, but the tender has not been submitted on behalf of M/S ACE Integrated Solutation Pvt. Ltd. The provision of Section IV (1) of the Tender Notice has been quoted in the impugned order. According to the said provision, the tender must be incorporated under Indian Companies Act, 1956 / the Partnership Act, 1932. In view thereof, M/S ACE Consultants did not fulfil the required condition and its tender has been rightly rejected on that ground.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned letter whereby the petitioners' tender has been held to be not acceptable. I find that in the impugned letter, speaking reason has been assigned with the relevant provision of the Tender Notice, which clearly goes to show that the tenderer must be incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 / the Partnership Act, 1932 and that consortium of firms is not allowed. Admittedly, the tender was submitted in the letterhead of M/S ACE Consultants, Patparganj, New Delhi, which is said to be a division of M/S ACE Integrated Solutation Pvt. Ltd. It is not an independent Company and is not registered either under Indian Companies Act or under the Partnership Act and does not fulfil the essential requirement for participating in the tender.
In view of the above, I find no arbitrariness or illegality in the impugned letter refusing acceptance of the tender submitted by M/S ACE Consultants.
This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
S.K (NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J)