Jai Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is aggrieved by the rejection of his technical bid. The petitioner had bid for the purpose of providing cab and taxi hiring services, which has to be used by Chief Medical Officer, Lalitpur. The technical bid of the petitioner was rejected on three grounds that firstly, there has to be past experience in similar field of last three years is not fulfilled as per bid terms and conditions, secondly, Anti Collusion certificate from letter head note was not supplied and thirdly, affidavit of firm owner regarding blood relation in health department did not fulfill the guidelines of the department.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as first and second grounds are concerned, he has satisfied the department with regard to numbers of years of experience as he has been providing service to the department for 12 - 13 years. His bid has been rejected ultimately on the third ground as his brother's wife i.e. sister in law of the petitioner was a contract employee working in the managerial cadre of the department. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with reference to the manual for procurement of works for Government of India with specific reference to Clause 4/5 (i) (vi), which prohibited the bidder from having near relations, which is defined as first blood relations and their spouses

¶13

WRIC No. 39798 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

of the bidder involved in the decision making in the procurement as listed in the appendix to ITB. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that person in question, who is his sister-in-law, is not in a position of authority and that she has only been employed on contractual basis.

¶16

Learned Standing Counsel for the State, on the other hand, while opposing the petition, has submitted that though the petitioner's sister-inlaw has been employed on contract basis, the fact that she occupies managerial post, is enough reason to presume that she is in a position to influence the outcome of the bidding process.

¶17

Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents annexed along with the petition, this Court is of the opinion that degree of influence that a person may exert in the bidding process, cannot be assessed or measured by this Court at all. The very fact that the person, who is in the managerial position is a spouse of a blood relation, being sister-in-law of the petitioner, raises sufficient apprehension that she may be in a position to influence the outcome of the bidding process.

¶18

Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the rejection of the petitioner at the stage of technical bid on the aforementioned ground, cannot be said to be perverse or unreasoned. Therefore, the petition fails and is dismissed.

¶19

Consequently, the Civil Misc. Impleadment Application filed by the petitioner to implead Bunny Enterprises, Lalitpur is also dismissed.

¶20

(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Atul Sreedharan,J.)

¶21

November 21, 2025

¶22

Noman

¶23

Digitally signed by :- NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jai Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ajal Krishna vs the State of U.P. and 5 Others

Mubarik Husain and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Managing Committee, Noori Jama Masjid vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arshiya Anjum vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Taira Khatun vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mubarik Husain and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others