Jharkhand High Court
Manoj Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 23 September, 2019
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 3911 of 2019
-----
Manoj Singh Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand & Ors .... ... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate For the Res-State : Ms. Shristi Sinha, A.C to A.G. For the Res No. 3 : Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv Mr. Shahid Yunus, Adv.
-----
Order No. 03 : Dated 23rd September, 2019 This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder following prayers have been made:
"(I).For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/, direction(s) for quashing tender notice issued on 09.02.2019 (Annexure 2) by the respondent no. 4, the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih wherein tenders have been invited for transportation-cum-handling work for the financial year 2019-20 for carrying out Door Step Delivery of food grains in the district of Giridih, as being wholly illegal and contrary to the decision of the State of Jharkhand contained in Memo No. 1132 dated 18.03.2016 wherein direction has been issued to ensure that tenders are invited for Door Step Delivery indicating the minimum rate to be quoted by the bidder of Rs. 30/- per quintal for carrying out the work of handling and transportation of food grains.
(ii).For issuance of further appropriate writ(s), direction(s) and/or order(s), including Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents-authorities to issue fresh tender notice inviting tenders for appointment of transportation-cum-handling contractors for door step delivery work of food grains to be undertaken in the district of Giridih strictly in terms of 2 decision of State of Jharkhand contained in Memo No. 1132 dated 18.03.2016;
(iii).Or in alternative to prayer (i) and (ii) above, the petitioner prays for issuance of writ(s)/order(s)/, direction(s) for quashing and set aside the decision of the tender Committee contained in Memo No. 03 eqñ dated 01.03.2019 (Annexure 3) wherein despite the fact that the petitioner has been declared as lowest bidder for Jamua Block of the district of Giridih, decision has been taken not to award the work in question to the petitioner merely because criminal cases are pending against the petitioner, as being wholly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the terms and conditions of the tender notice;
(iv)Or in alternative to prayer (i) and (ii) above, for issuance of writ(s)/order(s)/, direction(s), including a Writ of Declaration declaring that action of respondents-
authorities, particularly respondent no. 4, the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih in awarding the work of transportation and handling of food grains for Jamua Block of the district of Giridih in favour of private respondent no. 7, Santosh Kumar Sahu is wholly illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the terms and conditions of the tender notice;
(v)Or in alternative to prayer (i) and (ii) above, For issuance of further writ(s)/ order(s)/, direction(s) including Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents, particularly Respondent No. 5, to allot the work of transportation and handling of food grains for door step delivery for Jamua Block in the district of Giridih in favour of petitioner, especially because the petitioner has fulfilled all the eligibility criteria of tender notice and especially because the petitioner has been identified as lowest bidder; Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has participated in tender 3 process in terms of the tender notice, as has been annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition for supply of transportation and handling of food grains to be distributed under Public Distribution System, in which, the petitioner has been declared to be lowest bidder for Jamua but his candidature has been rejected on a complaint made by one Ashok Yadav about his involvement in two criminal cases, which are pending at the time of consideration of candidature of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the terms and conditions of 'Notice Inviting Tender' has submitted that disqualification on the ground of criminal case been reflected under Condition No. 22, which provides that the candidature of a candidate, if convicted in a criminal case, would be rejected, therefore, even if the cases are running against the petitioner since he has not been convicted, the decision taken by the tender committee for not allowing the petitioner though he has been declared to be L-1 and awarded the work to L-2, is an arbitrary process in the decision making process, therefore, the same requires to be interfered with by this Court by exercising its power of judicial review conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Ms. Shristi Sinha, A.C to learned A.G has sought for three weeks' time to seek instruction and file counter affidavit in the matter by giving para-wise reply to the averments made in the writ petition, which shall be filed before the next date of listing.
4
Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 has submitted that since the decision is to be taken by the functionary of the State, therefore, he has to defend the decision taken by the State.
Considering the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the respondents-State is directed to file counter affidavit, by serving copy of the same upon counsel for the petitioner, within a period of three weeks.
List this case after three weeks under the same heading.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Alankar/-