Partly allowed

M/S Bhardwaj Construction v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC28 Aug 2012CWJC/9662/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court disposed of four writ petitions challenging the rejection of technical bids on grounds of poor past performance. The court held that assessing past performance is within the authorities' discretion, not the court's. It directed the petitioner to submit documents proving satisfactory performance to the Engineer-in-Chief within one week, maintaining status quo for two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to file a representation enclosing documents to prove satisfactory performance before the Engineer-in-Chief within one week; status quo maintained for two weeks.

M/S Bhardwaj Construction Vs the State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9386 of 2012

¶2

======================================================

¶3

M/S Bhardwaj Construction Through Its Partner, Kamlesh Kumar S/O Ramashray Singh R/O Mohalla-286, Anugrahpuri Colony, P.S. Rampur, District-Gaya

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. The State Of Bihar

¶7

The Principal Secretary, Rural Work Department Bihar, Patna

¶8

The Engineer-In-Chief, Rural Work Department, Bihar, Patna

¶9

The Chief Engineer, Rural Work Department, Bihar, Patna

¶10

The Secretary (Technical) To Chief Engineer, Rural Work Department, Bihar, Patna

¶11

The Superintending Engineer, Rural Work Department, Work Division, Gaya

¶12

The Executive Engineer, Rural Work Department, Work Division, Gaya

¶13

.... .... Respondent/s

¶14

======================================================

¶15

With

¶16

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9662 of 2012

¶17

======================================================

¶18

M/S Bhardwaj Construction Through Its Partner, Kamlesh Kumar S/O Ramashray Singh R/O Mohalla- 286, Anugrahpuri Colony, P.S- Rampur, District- Gaya.

¶19

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶20

Versus

¶21

The State Of Bihar

¶22

The Principal Secretary, Rural Work Department Bihar, Patna.

¶23

The Engineer-In- Chief, Rural Work Department Bihar, Patna.

¶24

The Chief Engineer, Rural Work Department Bihar, Patna.

¶25

The Secretary (Technical) To Chief Engineer, Rural Work Department Bihar, Patna.

¶26

The Superintending Engineer, Rural Work Department Work Division, Gaya.

¶27

The Executive Engineer, Rural Work Department Work Division, Gaya. .... .... Respondent/s

¶28

======================================================

¶29

With

¶30

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9584 of 2012

¶31

======================================================

¶32

M/S Bhardwaj Construction Through Its Partner Kamlesh Kumar S/O Ramashray Singh R/O Mohalla - 286, Anugrahpuri Colony, P.S. Rampur, District - Gaya

¶33

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶34

Versus

¶35

1. The State Of Bihar

¶36

The Principal Secretary, Rural Work Department Bihar, Patna

¶37

The Engineer-In-Chief, Rural Work Department, Bihar, Patna

¶38

The Chief Engineer, Rural Work Department, Bihar, Patna

¶39

The Secretary (Technical) To Chief Engineer, Rural Work Department, Bihar, Patna

¶40

Patna High Court CWJC No.9386 of 2012 (6) dt.28-08-2012

¶41

2 / 4

¶42

The Superintending Engineer, Rural Work Department, Work Division, Gaya 7. The Executive Engineer, Rural Work Department Work Division, Gaya .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== With Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12090 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. M/S Bhardwaj Construction Through Its Partner, Kamlesh Kumar S/O Ramashray Singh R/O Mohalla- 286, Anugrahpuri Colony, P.S.- Rampur, District- Gaya .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary Rural Work Department, Bihar, Patna 3. The Engineer-In-Chief Rural Work Department, Bihar, Patna 4. The Chief Engineer, Rural Work Department, Bihar, Patna 5. The Secretary (Technical) To Chief Engineer Rural Work Department, Bihar, Patna 6. The Superintending Engineer Rural Work Department, Work Division, Gaya 7. The Executive Engineer, Rural Work Division, Gaya

¶43

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No.9386 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv. For the private respondent/s : Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv. (In CWJC No.9662 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ravindra Kumar Sinha, Adv. (In CWJC No.9584 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ravindra Kumar Sinha, Adv. (In CWJC No.12090 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, AC to AAG-14 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶44

6 28-08-2012 These four writ applications have been preferred by one firm against rejection of its technical bid in respect of work related to different tender notices. In all the orders of rejection of technical bid, the common ground is that its past performance was

¶45

Patna High Court CWJC No.9386 of 2012 (6) dt.28-08-2012

¶46

3 / 4

¶47

poor. That means on the ground of poor performance its technical bid has been rejected.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioner disputes this and submits that this ground is non est. He submits that there are enough materials to show that the performance of the petitioner was satisfactory and as per expectation of the authorities. He submits that wherever the petitioner could not complete the work he had valid reasons for the same which were beyond the control

¶49

of the petitioner. Hence, those documents should have been considered by the respondents before coming to the conclusion that his earlier performance was poor.

¶50

Whether the performance of the petitioner in earlier contracts was poor or not is a matter of the satisfaction of the authorities. This Court cannot examine this disputed question and come to its own findings and substitute its opinion over the opinion of the competent authorities of the Department.

¶51

In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter and submissions of either of the parties, this Court allows the petitioner to file a representation before the Engineer-in-Chief of the Department in all the four cases, enclosing all documents on the basis of which he claims that his performance was not poor earlier. If he does so within one week, the Engineer-in-Chief will

¶52

Patna High Court CWJC No.9386 of 2012 (6) dt.28-08-2012

¶53

4 / 4

¶54

consider the same and come to a definite opinion in respect of the matter and thereafter shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within one week.

¶55

Only for these two weeks status quo shall continue. However, in case, without any fault of the petitioner the matter remains pending with the Engineer-in-Chief then the status quo shall continue with regard to the works till he takes a final decision. If the decision is taken within these two weeks, status quo shall stand vacated and any further action in the matter shall be depended on the orders of the Engineer-in-Chief.

¶56

The writ applications are disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.

¶57

Arvind/-

¶58

(Jayanandan Singh, J)

M/S Bhardwaj Construction v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Bhardwaj Construction v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

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

Smt.Kalyani Devi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

M/S Purnea Cold Storage Vs the State Bank of India and Anr.

M/s Param Enterprises P Ltd. Vs The Eastern Railway and Ors.

Manorma Devi Vs The Central Bank Of India and Ors.

Radhika Kumari Vs The Life Insurance Corporation Of India and Ors.

Punam Singh and Ors. Vs Punjab National Bank and Ors.