Jharkhand High Court
M/S 3R Management Private Limited vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 October, 2020
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 540 of 2020
M/s 3R Management Private Limited, New Delhi, through its authorized
signatory, Manisha Sharma (AGM) ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. State Urban Development Authority (SUDA), through its Director, Ranchi
4. State Urban Development Authority (SUDA), Ranchi
5. The Director, State Urban Development Authority (SUDA), Ranchi
6. Adityapur Nagar Nigam, through its Executive Officer, Adityapur, Jamshedpur
(East Snghbhum)
7. M/s Consortium of W2E Challenge Private Limited, Aditypapur, Jamshedpur,
(East Singhbhum), through its authorized representative
..... Respondents
-----
CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner: Mr. Krishna Murari
For the State: Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, A.C to A.G
For Respondent No.6: Mr. Ranjan Prasad Sinha
-----
03/12.10.2020 The petitioner has filed the present writ petition with following prayers:
(a) to declare that the entire decision making process including the decisions dated 27.09.2019 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) and dated 18.10.2019 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) of the Tender Committee of SUDA appertaining to Request for Proposal bearing RFP No. UDD/JUA/01/2018-19 dated 08.03.2019 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) are void ab initio, arbitrary and unconstitutional as well as violative of the principles of natural justice and Clause 163(a) of the PWD Code and accordingly to quash the same.
(b) to quash the follow up letter No. 2048 dated 07.11.2019 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) issued by the Deputy Director, SUDA to the Executive Officer, Adityapur Nagar Nigam and also to quash the Letter of Acceptance (LOA) being Letter No. 072 dated 14.01.2020 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) issued thereof in favour of the respondent No.7 which are illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
(c) for issuance of direction upon the respondents to award the work in favour of the petitioner, who is most eligible and suitable both technically and financially as per the Bids tendered 2 by it and accordingly to issue LOA and execute the agreement as per RFP No. UDD/JUA/01/2018-19.
I.A. No. 3553/2020During the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner has filed the present interlocutory application seeking amendment in the prayers made in the writ petition by putting challenge to subsequent notice as contained in memo No. 1512 dated 05.06.2020 (Annexure-10 to the present interlocutory application) issued under the signature of the Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Adityapur by reasons of which it has been informed that NIT No. UDD/JUA/01/2018-19 has been cancelled by the Tender Committee of SUDA. The petitioner has also sought to add further grounds so as to challenge memo No. 1512 dated 05.06.2020.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed the present interlocutory application primarily due to the reason that the Tender Committee of SUDA has cancelled NIT No. UDD/JUA/01/2018-19 as informed vide memo No. 1512 dated 05.06.2020 signed by the Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Adityapur which does not contain any reason. In fact, the respondent No.7 was ineligible in the said tender as it had quoted 31.03% less than of the DPR rate. The petitioner having quoted 6.04% less than the DPR rate and also being technically qualified was entitled to be awarded the work in question. However, vide memo No. 1512 dated 05.06.2020, the information has been communicated that the NIT in question itself has been cancelled by the Tender Committee of SUDA which is highly arbitrary and illegal. It is further submitted that addition of the said prayer and the grounds related therewith will not change the nature of the present writ petition. Hence, the amendment sought by the petitioner may be allowed.
Mr. Ranjan Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.6 and Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand, jointly submit that the issue raised in the present writ petition is primarily with regard to the decision making process undertaken by 3 the Tender Committee of SUDA by which the work in question has been awarded to the respondent No.7. Since the NIT in question itself has been cancelled and the grounds of challenging the same are entirely different from the main question raised in the writ petition, allowing of the present interlocutory application filed on behalf of the petitioner would change the entire nature of the present writ petition.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of the present writ petition as well as the interlocutory application. It appears from the prayers made by the petitioner in the present writ petition that it has challenged the order/notice issued by the Adityapur Municipal Corporation in terms with the decision taken by the Tender Committee of SUDA for awarding the work in question to the respondent No.7. The petitioner has also claimed in the present writ petition that being an eligible tenderer, it should have been awarded the said work. The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the decision taken by the Tender Committee, SUDA as informed by the Adityapur Municipal Corporation regarding cancellation of the said tender. The ground thereof mentioned in the present interlocutory application itself is entirely different from those mentioned in the present writ petition. Thus, I am of the view that allowing of the present interlocutory application would amount to changing the nature of the entire writ petition. Hence, the aforesaid amendment prayed by the petitioner cannot be allowed.
The present interlocutory application is accordingly dismissed. W.P.(C) No. 540 of 2020 Since the present writ petition has been filed challenging the order issued by the Adityapur Municipal Corporation in terms with the decision taken by the Tender Committee of SUDA for awarding the work in question to the respondent No.7 and the tender in question itself has been cancelled vide memo No. 1512 dated 05.06.2020 issued under the signature of the Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Adityapur, the present writ petition has become infructuous.
4
The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of as infructuous. The petitioner is however at liberty to challenge the notice as contained in memo No. 1512 dated 05.06.2020 afresh taking all the available grounds.
Satish/- (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)