M/S Dinesh Kumar Thru. Its Sole Prop. Dinesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Public Works, Lko and 5 Others

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2025WRIC/3273/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenge tender finalisation in favour of opposite party no.6 whose balancesheet was held false by the district level committee. The court found the headquarter level committee ignored bid document clauses and directed the Engineer-in-Chief to institute an inquiry, restrained issue of work order, and permitted a fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Work order to opposite party no.6 restrained; inquiry ordered; fresh decision permitted without prejudice.

M/S Dinesh Kumar Thru. Its Sole Prop… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3273 of 2025

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Dinesh Kumar Thru. Its Sole Prop. Dinesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Deptt. Of Public Works, Lko And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amar Nath Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

WITH

¶5

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3388 of 2025

¶6

Petitioner :- M/S Saket Associates Lalganj Pratapgarh Thru. Proprietor Sunil Kumar Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Public Works Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amar Nath Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶7

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

¶8

Heard.

¶9

This matter has been heard for several days albeit intermittently.

¶10

On 11.04.2025, we had passed the following order:-

¶11

"Shri Amar Nath Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

¶12

We have interacted with the Officers who have joined video conferencing. Initially, the records had not been sent. Post lunch when they have been sent they are not complete.

¶13

The report/decision of the Higher Level Committee at the Head Quarters which has taken a decision contrary to the report/decision of the District Level Committee, is not before us.

¶14

We would like the Officers to explain the basis for the earlier report by the District Level Committee which found the opposite party no. 4 non responsive and then, the basis for another decision by the Higher Level Committee, treating the opposite party no. 6 as responsive.

¶15

Let the Executive Engineer who was part of the District Level Committee as also the then Chief Engineer who was heading the

¶16

Committee at the Head Quarters appear in person before this Court and submit the explanation as aforesaid.

¶17

It is open for the them to file an affidavit responding to the writ petition as also keeping in mind what has been noticed hereinabove.

¶18

The opposite party no. 6 has not yet started the work nor any agreement has been executed nor work order issued to him.

¶19

List/ put up on 18.04.2025 as fresh. "

¶20

The required affidavits have been filed today which are taken on record. Petitioner has filed his response to the earlier affidavits.

¶21

Sri Vijay Singh, Chief Engineer whose predecessor headed the committee at the headquarter level is present so is Sri Ajay Kumar, Executive Engineer who was part of the district level committee which had found opposite party no.6 non-responsive or at least deficient. Sri Naresh Kumar, Superintending Engineer who is at present holding additional charge of head of district level committee is also present.

¶22

On being asked learned Standing Counsel and Sri Vijay Singh, Chief Engineer informed that although five years' experience was required but so far as turnover is concerned, the same should have been equivalent to volume of construction work of at least the amount equal to estimated cost of work in any one of the five years which was a factor overlooked by district level committee and the headquarter level committee noticed this and as opposite party no.6 was eligible, therefore, tender was finalized in favour of opposite party no.6. He invited our attention to para 4.4 of the bid document which reads as under:-

¶23

"4.4 A To qualify for award of the Contract, each bidder should have in the last five years:

¶24

a) Achieved in any one year a minimum financial turnover (in all cases of civil engineering construction works only) volume of construction work of at least the amount equal to the estimated cost of works (excluding maintenance cost for five years) for which bid has been invited. The turnover will be indexed at the rate of 8 percent for a year.

¶25

b) Satisfactorily completed, as prime Contractor, at least one similar work equal in value to one-third of the estimated cost of work (excluding maintenance cost of five years) for which the bid is invited, or such higher amount as may be specified in the Appendix

¶26

to ITB."

¶27

On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to para 4.4 B(a)(ii) which requires that each bidder must produce an affidavit that the information furnished with the bid documents is correct in all respects. He then invited our attention to para no.4.7(i) according to which even though the bidders meet the qualifying criteria mentioned in the earlier clauses, they were subject to be disqualified if they made misleading or false representation in the forms, statements, affidavits and attachments submitted in proof of the qualification required. Based on the aforesaid, he submitted that on a complaint being filed by the petitioner that the documents filed by opposite party no.6 were forged and fabricated, the district level committee got an inquiry conducted and the Chartered Accountant who was alleged to have issued the certificate which was in doubt gave in writing that balancesheet which has been annexed as proof of experience and turnover etc had not been issued by him. Therefore, in these circumstances, the district level committee did not find opposite party no.6 responsive and referred the matter to the headquarter committee but headquarter committee overlooked this aspect of the matter.

¶28

On being confronted, Sri Vijay Singh, Chief Engineer says that decision was taken by a Committee headed by his predecessor but he will review the decision. We do not accept this explanation at all. He has no answer whatsoever as to why the headquarter level committee did not see para no.4.7(i) of the bid document.

¶29

We have perused the recommendation of district level committee at page no.17 of the counter affidavit of the State authorities filed in Writ-C No.3273 of 2025 [M/s Dinesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Ors.] which is on record and original has also been placed before us today by learned Standing Counsel and we find that the reason for district level committee to sustain objections of the petitioner qua opposite party no.6 was the false balancesheet submitted by it. We fail to understand as to how headquarter level committee ignored this aspect of the matter and found opposite party no.6 qualified. This is a matter of inquiry. The Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department is directed to institute an inquiry into the matter and submit a report. Notices have already been issued to opposite party no.6 through opposite party no.5Executive Engineer who is present in person today who

¶30

says that it has been served upon opposite party no.6. However, none appears on behalf of opposite party no.6. He shall file an affidavit of service within one week. However, as a measure of abundant caution, let regular notice be issued to opposite party no.6 by regular mode also. We restrain opposite parties from issuing work order to opposite party no.6, however, they shall be at liberty to take a fresh decision in the matter without prejudice to the rights, if any, of opposite party no.6.

¶31

The same facts and issues are involved in connected Writ-C No.3388 of 2025, a fact which is admitted by learned counsel for the State also, therefore, this order will operate in the said case also.

¶32

List both the petitions on 26.05.2025.

¶33

(Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J. )

¶34

Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Shanu/-

¶35

Digitally signed by :- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S Dinesh Kumar Thru. Its Sole Prop. Dinesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Public Works, Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Dinesh Kumar Thru. Its Sole Prop. Dinesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Public Works, Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rakesh Kant Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health Govt. of U.P. Lko and 5 Others

Devi Baksh Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tourism Lko. and 5 Others

Anand Pratap Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Agriculture Lko and 6 Others

Anoop Kumar and 8 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Sugar Cane Deptt. Lko and 5 Others

Ram Nayak and 6 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko and 4 Others

Sanjay Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others