Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Jharkhand High Court

Dinesh Ram vs Union Of India & Ors. on 7 December, 2012

Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh

Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   W. P. (C) No. 1192 of 2008
      Dinesh Ram                              ...Petitioner
                          -Versus-
      Union of India and others       ........Respondents.
                                ---
      CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
                                       ---
      For the Petitioner                       : Ms. Ritu Kumar, Adv.
      For the Respondents-U.O.I                : Mr. Mokhtar Khan,ASGI
      For the Respondents-BCCL                 : Mr. Anup Kumar Mehta, Adv.
      For the Respondent No. 8                 : Mr. Himanshu Kumar Mehta,Adv.
                                         --

04/07.12.2012

Heard learned counsel for the parties. 

The writ petition has been preferred challenging opening of  the   tender  no.  KOL/72/RLB­JC/Oxygen  Self  Rescuer/ADVT/2007­08/11  dated 23rd July, 2007 alleging non­compliance of letter dated 8th January,  2008   (Annexure­7)   by   respondent   no.   8.     It   is   further   prayed   that   the  respondent no.3, Director General of Mines Safety, Dhanbad, may be asked  as to how and under what circumstances letters dated 13th September, 2007  and 17th September, 2007, were issued granting additional approval to the  respondent no.8.  

In short by the said NIT, tenders were invited for supply of  'Chemical Type Self Generating Oxygen Self Rescuer 30 minute duration  by the Respondents­BCCL to be used for the safety of its workers working  in the mines belonging to them.  The petitioner is admittedly not a tenderer  in the said NIT, however, he claims to be a member of Agragani Jharkhand  Colliery Mazdoor Union and is concerned with the safety of miners.  The  reason for assailing the tender, according to the petitioner, is that certain  defects were pointed out in the aforesaid article to be supplied under the  instant tender by  the  respondent no.  8 as per the report of the Director  General of Mines Safety.  

Learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   has   relied   upon  Annexure­3 letter of the D.G.M.S dated 11th September, 2007.   Learned  counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon Annexure­6 to submit that  the respondent no. 8 was required to replace all defective batches within the  stipulated time of six months as per NIT, however, he has not done so.  

The respondents­BCCL have appeared and filed their counter  affidavit.   The   Director   General   of   Mines   Safety   has   filed   a   separate  affidavit.   The respondent no. 8 also entered appearance through counsel,  but he has not filed any affidavit. As such the stand of the BCCL is that the  ­2­ writ petition itself is not maintainable at the instance of petitioner, who is  an outsider and he has no locus­standi to challenge the tender as he has not  participated  in   the  said  tender.     It  is   further  submitted   on  behalf of  the  counsel for the BCCL that the advertised tender, in question, was opened  following   the   entire   process   as   required   under   the   NIT   and   was   finally  approved   in   favour   of   the   respondent   no.   8   who   is   L­1.     It   is   further  submitted that the project is covered by valid D.G.M.S approval, which is  mandatory   requirement   and   hence   the   Apparatus   is   safe.     It   is   further  submitted   that   the   petitioner   has   relied   upon   a   letter   which   is   a  correspondence   from   D.G.M.S   to   the   firm   seeking   certain   information  which did not have any bearing on the tender processing of M/s. BCCL.  It  is   further   stated   categorically   at   paragraph   14   that   the   Self   Rescue  Apparatus  is  safe  having  been  approved  by  the  D.G.M.S for  use  in  the  underground mines.   The approval granted by D.G.M.S vide letters dated  1.8.2004   and   4.1.2005   to   the   respondent   no.   8   for   supply   of   Chemical  Oxygen Type Self Rescuers, Model­Raksha Kawatch  was valid on the date  of opening of the tender.  The D.G.M.S vide letter dated 11th September,  2007 (Annexure­3)  had  withdrawn the approval but again vide letter dated  13th September, 2007 (Annexure­4) had restored the approval.  Therefore,  the withdrawal letter becomes in operative and redundant. Both the bidders  were in possession of D.G.M.S. approval and out of them the respondent  no.   8   was   finally   selected   as   L­1   as   per   the   direction   of   the   D.G.M.S.  contained in letter dated 17.9.2007.   The respondent no. 8 was asked by  B.C.C.L to replace all 70 numbers of such Self Rescuers even though no  defects were noticed.   In paragraph 22, it has been categorical stated that  respondent no. 8 has replaced all 70 numbers of Self Rescuers and the same  have been tested at the approved Laboratory of Indian School of Mines  University(ISMU),   where   the   tests   results   were   found   satisfactory.     The  entire   procurement   has   been   made   through   tender   process   as   per   the  direction   of   D.G.M.S.   guidelines/approval   and   there   is   no   delay   in   the  supply of the same. Any delay in procurement of these items would have  deprived the workers of coal mines in availing the help of life saving devise  as per statutory requirement.

The   respondents­D.G.M.S,   in   their   reply,   have   also  categorical stated at paragraph 19 that the matter for replacement of 70  pieces  of  'Raksha Kavach'  by  respondent  no. 8  were  taken  up  by  the  ­3­ B.C.C.L and they have confirmed vide letter dated 4th March, 2008 that all  70 'Raksha Kavach' had been replaced by the respondent no. 8  Learned counsel for the respondent no. 8 also submits on their  behalf that they had approval of DGMS from before and on the date of  opening of the tender as well.   The certain Raksha Kavach which were  found to be defective were replaced within the period of supply   and the  entire Raksha Kavach has also been supplied within the stipulated time.  

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone  through the entire materials on record.  The petitioner admittedly is not a  participant in the NIT which has been challenged by him and is not an  aggrieved   person   in   the   sense   of   the   term   having   no   locus­standi   to  challenge   the   tender   process.     Even   then,   the   issues   raised   in   the   writ  application   relating   to   safety   of   'Raksha   Kavach'   appears   to   have   been  adequately   addressed   by   the   respondent­B.C.C.L   and   D.G.M.S   in   their  reply as narrated hereinabove and the entire supply of Raksha Kavach, in  question,   have   also   been   made   within   the   stipulated   time.   70   pieces   of  Raksha Kavach which were said to be defective have also been replaced by  respondent no. 8 during the period of work order itself.  

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, therefore, I have no  reason   to   exercise   discretionary   jurisdiction   in   the   instant   case.  Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) jk/