Dismissed

Vivek Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Jul 2023WPC/3380/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the arbitrary manner of tender processing and the selection of other transporters in the PDS commodities tender, alleging illegality. The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that since the petitioners admitted non-eligibility due to providing a one-year lease instead of the two-year requirement, they had no locus standi to challenge the final order. No orders as to co

What did the court decide?

Petitioners' prayer for setting aside the tender memo and quashing the selection of other transporters was dismissed as they lacked locus standi.

Vivek Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (C) No. 3380 of 2023

¶3

Vivek Kumar Singh,

¶4

Rajesh Kumar

¶5

Shakti Shankar Prasad Gupta

¶6

Md. Amjad Ali … … … ... ... ... Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand

¶9

The Managing Director, Jharkhand State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Ranchi

¶10

The Secretary, Deptt. Of Food, Civil supplies & Consumer Affairs, Dhurwa, Ranchi

¶11

Deputy Commissioner, Palamau

¶12

District Supply Officer, Palamau

¶13

C-1 India Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director, Gurgaon, Haryana.

¶14

Sri Abhishek Kumar

¶15

Uday Narayan Singh …

¶16

… … … … Respondents

¶17

--------- CORAM: SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J. SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶18

--------For the Petitioners: Mr. Sahil, Advocate For the State: Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G. For Resp. No.2: Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Advocate Mr. Chandan Tiwari, Advocate

¶19

¶20

02/Dated: 17.07.2023

¶21

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court

¶22

passed the following, ( Per , Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)

¶23

ORDER

¶24

1. In this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for the following

¶25

reliefs:-

¶26

(i) For setting aside Memo no. 788 (A) dated 02.06.2023 issued under the signature of the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau whereby and whereunder the tender documents have been processed in a most arbitrary manner and in a manner which smacks of malafide, favouritism, nepotism and is aimed at encouraging unfair trade practice.

¶27

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing/setting aside the Memo No. 788(A) dated

¶28

-2-

¶29

2.6.2023 (Annexure-2) to the extent of selection of transporters for the Block of Chainpur and Chhattarpur, whereby and whereunder the respondent authorities have been pleased to reject the tender of the petitioners on non-sustainable grounds like the ground of his having submitted lease agreement of vehicles valid for only one year whereas as Clause- 13.3 of RFP he was required to submit the same for two years.

¶30

(iii) For quashing/setting aside the aforesaid Memo No. 788(A) dated 2.6.2023 (Annexure-2) on the ground that Abhishek Kumar (Respondent No.6) has been allowed to participate in the tender process despite his being disqualified as per the terms of the RFP just in order to allot the tender to one Udayt Narayan Singh (Respondent No.7) and avoid competition.

¶31

1. In a tender floated by Deputy Commissioner, Palamau i.e. respondent No.4, the petitioners participated therein for contract of transportation of PDS commodities. Amongst other things, the Notice Inviting Tender contained a stipulation that the intending suppliers should produce a lease agreement for two years.

¶32

1. Admittedly, the petitioners did not have the lease agreement for two years as required in paragraph 13.3 of the Notice Inviting Tender. They have produced the agreement of lease valid for one year.

¶33

1. Clause 13.3 of the Notice Inviting Tender reads as under:-

¶34

“13.3 The applicant should have Light Motor Vehicles (LMV) or Heavy Motor Vehicles (HMV) or a combination of both, meant for goods transport, per block with lease and ownership. At least 40% of the vehicles must be owned by the owner. In case of Agreement or Leased Vehicles, the Agreement or Lease should be valid for minimum 2 years (i.e. during the tenure of this Tender).”

¶35

-3-

¶36

1. In view of such defect, the tender documents submitted by the petitioners were rejected by the authorities. Now the petitioners are claiming that the private respondent Nos.7 and 8, who have been granted the award of execution of the tender work, have also certain deficiencies which were ignored by the respondent No.4.

¶37

1. When, admittedly, the petitioners are not eligible to participate in the tender, then they cannot claim that certain illegality has been permitted by the respondents. There is no equality in illegality. Moreover, the petitioners having been disqualified do not have any locus standi to challenge the final order.

¶38

1. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this writ petition which is dismissed accordingly.

¶39

1. There shall be no orders as to costs.

¶40

1. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶41

1. Urgent certified copies as per rules.

¶42

(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)

¶43

(Ananda Sen, J.)

¶44

Manoj/MM

Vivek Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Similar cases

The State of Jharkhand through Commandant Jharkhand Armed Police 7 Vs Manish Kumar Mishra

Upendra Prasad Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Their Workman Smt Gulabia Devi Vs Employers in Relation to the Management of Sudamdih Shaft Mine of Eastern Jharia Area of Ms B C C L

Ms Usha Martin Limited Through Its President Mining Division Sri Karun Kant Dave Vs Mines And Geological Survey

Nitesh Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Rural Development Department

Ghuda Bhagat Alias Bhura Bhagat Vs the State of Jharkhand