M/S Satish Kumar Singh Vs Union of India

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 27 of 2024

¶5

1. M/s Satish Kumar Singh Through Its Proprietor, Satish Kumar Singh, S/o R.P Singh, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Vinoba Nagar, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. Union Of India Through General Manager South East Central Railway, New G M Building S. E. C. Railway, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

2. Principal Chief Commercial Manager South East Central Railway, New G M Building S. E. C. Railway, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

3. Additional Chief Health Director (G) Central Hospital, S. E. C. Railway, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

4. Medical Director Central Hospital, S. E. C. Railway, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

5. Cleantech Services And Workforce H. No. 50, Sector-1, Shankar Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

---- Respondent

¶14

(Cause list is taken from CIS)

¶15

For Petitioner	: Mr. Amit Soni, Advocate
For Respondent Nos. 1 to 4	: Mr. R.K. Mishra, Dy. S.G. alongwith Mr. Rishab Deo Singh, Advocate
For Respondent No.5	: Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Advocates

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶17

Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶18

Order on Board on 08.01.2024

¶19

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶20

1. This petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

¶21

2

¶22

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ/direction for setting aside work order dated 07.12.2023 (Annexure-P/1) and order 16.12.2023 (Annexure – P/2).

¶23

10.2 That, the suitable writ/direction may kindly be issued declaring the action of respondents in disqualifying the petitioner as arbitrary and illegal and further allow the petitioner continue the existing work awarded to petitioner till 29.02.2024..

¶24

10.3 That, the suitable writ/direction may kindly be issued commanding the respondents to declare respondent No.5 as disqualified from the tender process.

¶25

10.4 That, the suitable writ/direction may kindly be issued commanding the respondents to initiate fresh tender process.

¶26

10.5 That, any other further order(s) as deemed fit and necessary by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice”

¶27

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner participated in the tender process floated by respondent No.3 and turned-out to be the lowest bidder L-1 In the tender process but subsequently the impugned work order 07.12.2023 has been issued in favour of respondent No.5 declaring the petitioner firm ineligible. The petitioner was sent e-mail regarding the tender and was given two days time for reply, but the petitioner could not see the e-mail , as the same was auto-generated and neither any message was received by him regarding the same. He further submits that similar work for the period 2021 to 2023 was awarded to the petitioner which was ultimately extended to 29.02.2024.

¶28

3. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has filed reply in the matter and submits that the petitioner, who is the L1 bidder in

¶29

3

¶30

the tender process has not submitted his price value for the work consist in the schedules B & C under the tender notice on the column of ‘Scope of Work’ wherein it is specifically mentioned in the Annexure - B which consist of the three Schedules A, B and C. The petitioner has not submitted any price value for the schedule B & schedule C. Consequently, the respondent authorities have disqualified the petitioner considering the price value for the said schedule B & C as per the “NIL” price quotation submitted by the petitioner. Subsequently, an E-mail generated through online portal was sent to the petitioner regarding the justification for not submitting any price value for the said schedules. The autogenerated E-mail dated 01/12/2023 is as follows:-

¶31

“Your have not offered any price for schedule B and Schedule C. Please give your price justification. Please also explain how you will run the contract without use of Material, consumables and machines. You have only quoted as per minimum wages notification dated 26.09.2023 which is essential Minimum statutory expenditure. So please explain how you will run contract without any profit/ cost over and above such minimum wage.”

¶32

The petitioner was duly communicated and he had ample opportunity to submit his justification/clarification before expiry of

¶33

4

¶34

the timeline, but the petitioner failed to do so which resulted in his disqualification from the tender process. He further submits that the respondent No.5, who is L-2 in the tender process has submitted his price value according to the schedules, hence the tender work order has been provided to respondent No.5.

¶35

4. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶36

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the present petition is disposed off with direction that the petitioner would be allowed to continue upto 29.02.2024, which is the period which has been extended and thereafter respondent No.5 shall continue, and so far as the petitioner is being aggrieved by the order dated 07.12.2023 that despite the fact that he was L-1, his financial bid has been disqualified, he may take recourse to law.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶40

(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice

¶41

Ravi Mandavi

M/S Satish Kumar Singh v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Satish Kumar Singh v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girvar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mahendra Bakhla Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Firuram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinod Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jeet Kumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Kumar Verma and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh