Remanded

Ankur Organic Biofertilizers Thru. Its Managing Dir. Ankur Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. the Chief Secy. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2024WRIC/9903/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Director, Agriculture Department to explain why a tender accepted a bid below the IARI-prescribed minimum price for Poosa De-composer Capsules despite a letter stating quality would be compromised.

What did the court decide?

Direct the Director, Agriculture Department to examine why the IARI minimum price guideline was not included in the tender document and explain. Adjourned till 05.12.2024.

Ankur Organic Biofertilizers Thru. Its… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9903 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Ankur Organic Biofertilizers Thru. Its Managing Dir. Ankur Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Chief Secy. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr. Pooja Singh,Abhishek Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.

¶5

Heard Dr. Pooja Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Tewari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 3.

¶6

Issue Dasti notice to the petitioner for service on opposite party no.4.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that point no.3 of the terms and conditions which are part of the letter dated 04.10.2024 and are in the form of guidelines for the tender in question, the minimum price of Poosa De-composer Capsule permissible is Rs.45/- plus GST and if any company quotes less than this, then the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi cannot certify its quality. Submission is that opposite party no.4 has bid a rate of Rs.17.99 per Poosa De-composer Capsule which is way less than the minimum price and, therefore, this obviously will compromise the quality of the product and the services to be rendered based thereon, but ignoring this, only to benefit opposite party no.4, its financial bid has been accepted.

¶8

Sri Rajesh Tewari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel says that this is not the condition in the tender document. However, prima facie, the letter dated 04.10.2024 of the IARI i.e. Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi is addressed to the Director, Agriculture Department, Krishi

¶9

Bhawan, Lucknow and is with regard to the rate of Poosa Decomposer Capsule which is the subject matter of the tender. Therefore, it is to be seen as to why this aspect has not been taken into consideration in the tender document. There have to be good reasons for the same.

¶10

Let Director, Agriculture Department, Krishi Bhawan, Lucknow examine the matter and provide requisite instructions in the light of the query aforesaid.

¶11

This matter shall now come up on 05.12.2024, as fresh.

¶12

Whatever action has been taken based on the tender document shall abide by the further orders in this writ petition.

¶13

(Brij Raj Singh, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.)

¶14

Order Date :- 20.11.2024 Rao/-

¶15

Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ankur Organic Biofertilizers Thru. Its Managing Dir. Ankur Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. the Chief Secy. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankur Organic Biofertilizers Thru. Its Managing Dir. Ankur Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. the Chief Secy. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Devi Prasad Tiwari and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Industrial Development U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

M/S Gkc Projects Ltd. Thru. Its Auth. Representative L Sri Rama Krishna vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

M/S Lalitpur Power Generation Co. Ltd. Lalitpur Thru. Its Authorized Signatory Mr.Amit Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Chief Secy. Lko. and 4 Others

Sudha Agarwal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Food and Civil Supply, U.P. Lucknow and 6 Others

Stuti Shrivastava and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Gajendra Kumar Srivastava and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others