Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anand Tekade vs Public Service Management on 17 December, 2021
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
T H E H I G H C O U R T O F MAD H YA PRAD E S H
B E N C H AT I N D O R E
(S.B.: HON'BLE Mr JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)
Writ Petition No.17827/2019
PETITIONER: ANAND TEKADE
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS: PUBLIC SERVICE MANAGEMENT AND
OTHERS
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Shashank Shrivastava, learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri Chetan Jain, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Shri Kaustubh Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent (INT)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Writ Petition No.17207/2019
PETITIONER: SUMEET GUPTA AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE
OTHERS
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Shashank Shrivastava, learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri Chetan Jain, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Writ Petition No.20708/2019
PETITIONER: BASANTILAL
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS: PUBLIC SERVICE MANAGEMENT DEP.
OTHERS
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Mohd. Rafik Shaikh, learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri Chetan Jain, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Writ Petition No.20454/2019
PETITIONER: YOGESH GUPTA AND OHTERS
- : 2 :-
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS: STATE OF M.P. THROUGH
DEPARTMENT
OTHERS
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Shashank Shrivastava, learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri Chetan Jain, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Date: 17.12.2021/ Indore:
Vide this common order I shall dispose of above said three four writ petitions as common question of law and facts are involved therein. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from W.P.17827/2019.
The petitioner was given a license to run Lok Seva Kendra. The respondent has issued a notification dated 01.03.2019 for awarding license to run Lok Seva Kendra in different District and Tehsils including Khargone. Due to the upcoming legislative election in the State of Madhya Pradesh, the time to complete procedure was extended upto 25.05.2019. Vide letter No.420 dated 23.03.2019, the respondents have issued a guideline on clause No.1.3.10 for submission of Net Worth Certificate and as also clarified that the certificate shall be valid for financial year 2017-18. Twice the date of submission of tender was issued and finally the date for opening on the tender was published. The respondents issued a list of participants to be declared qualified in technical bid. The name of petitioner was included in the said three places Bikangaon, Bhagwanpura and Khargone meanwhile vide letter dated 07.06.2019, the condition of possession of UDIN for Net Worth Certificate was introduced in the tender process.
The grievance of the petitioner is that in light of letter dated 30.05.2019, he has been declared disqualified for all the three places .It is submitted that vide letter dated 07.06.2019, the respondents have clarified that the specified Net Worth Certificate with UDIN or without UDIN number is acceptable in tender process then his rejection is illegal. The
- : 3 :-
conditions of tender cannot be changed after initiation of tender process.
Respondents have filed return by submitting that UDIN has become necessary vide notification dated 02.08.2019 issued by Central Government wherein the UDIN has become necessary for all certificate issued w.e.f. 01.02.2019. Hence, vide letter dated 06.08.2019 it has been made mandatory to have Net Worth Certificate with UDIN.
The similar writ petition No.19155/2019 has been dismissed by holding as under:
"Vide letter dated 19.08.2019, the State Public Service Authority has extended the date for submission of UDIN Number up to 04.06.2019. The petitioner has sufficient time to obtain the UDIN Number but, he did not obtain the aforesaid number before the cut off date. Therefore, even if in the NIT and rather REP there was no requirement of UDIN, but later on before opening of the technical bid, the sufficient time was given to the tenderer to obtain UDIN Number. Since, the petitioner has failed to obtain the UDIN Number before the cut off date, hence, his tender form has rightly been rejected"
Similar controversy came up before the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.15447/2019 which has been rejected by this Court vide 18-19/12/2019. Para 3 of the aforesaid order is reproduced below:
The issue raised by the petitioner is that the net worth certificate, which was to be submitted was for the year 2017-2018. However, during the aforesaid process, on the last date of the bid, in various districts the net worth of 2018-2019 has also been considered by the competent committee of the district, contrary to the basic condition of the RFP. The said alleged anomaly pointed out by the petitioner no.5 has been answered by the respondent/State in paragraph no.12 of their reply. The State has clarified that the RFP was issued in the month of March 2019 and at the time of issuance of RFP, the financial year 2018- 2019 had not come to an end and hence, the net worth certificate of the previous financial year 2017-2018 was called from the participants. However, as the last date of RFP was extended and after extension, the financial year 2018-2019 had ended, therefore, the net worth certificate of 2018-2019 along with the net worth certificate of 2017- 2018 were also accepted. The State has further clarified that they havenot compelled any body to bring the net
- : 4 :-
worth certificate of the financial of the year 2018-2019 and that the incumbent was free to bring the net worth certificate of the year 2017-2018 or of the year 2018- 2019. Therefore, the change has not made any drastic amendment to the basic tender conditions midway. The answer given in the reply by the State is cogent and extremely reasonable. Under the circumstances, the first issue that has been raised by the petitioner in paragraph 5.4 is rejected.
In view of the above, the issue does not remain res integra, hence, petition is hereby dismissed.
Certified copy as per Rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE praveen