Dismissed

Manoj Kumar Pandey v. the Union of India and Ors.

Patna HC19 Nov 2013CWJC/11200/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged cancellation of a qualified bid and alleged malicious file misplacement in a tender process. The Court found no illegality in cancelling the process and refused exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, permitting petitioner to participate in the new tender.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to participate in the fresh NIT if issued; writ application dismissed.

Manoj Kumar Pandey Vs the Union of India and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

Patna High Court CWJC No.11200 of 2011 (5) dt.19-11-2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11200 of 2011

¶3

====================================================== 1. Manoj Kumar Pandey Rajendra Pandey Bhagat Singh Road, Post And P.S. Naugachhia, Dist. Bhagalpur.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union of India through the Chief Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigham Limited Chandralok Building, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Chandralok Building, 36-Janpath, New Delhi. 3. The General Manager, Telecom District, Bhagalpur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Mallick For the Respondent/s : Mr. Raghib Ahsan(Asst.Sg) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶5

5 19-11-2013 Case of the petitioner is that against the NIT petitioner submitted his tender. His technical bid was opened and he was found qualified. His financial bid was opened and a negotiation was held. In the negotiation the rate offered by the Committee of the respondents was accepted by the petitioner, vide Annexure-4. Thereafter the file got misplaced in the office of the respondents. Allegation is that just to prevent the petitioner from getting the work, file was deliberately misplaced by some vested interest in the office. Thereafter, after waiting for quite some time, part file was opened and after considering the bid of the petitioner it was cancelled and the respondents decided to issue fresh NIT.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the

¶7

Patna High Court CWJC No.11200 of 2011 (5) dt.19-11-2013

¶8

misplaced file neither any enquiry Committee was set up by the respondents nor the police was informed nor any FIR was instituted. Hence, submission is that it was a malafide act of some of the officials of the Corporation due to which file was deliberately misplaced.

¶9

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the tender process petitioner was the only bidder and they received complaint that prospective tenderers were deliberately and forcefully restrained from submitting their bids.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact three persons had filed their bids in response to the NIT, out of which the technical bids of two of them were rejected and petitioner was only found to be qualified.

¶11

Be that as it may, the fact remains that the respondents have cancelled the bid of the petitioner. The original file is also not available to show that there were other bidders also who were considered.

¶12

In the circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the decision of the respondents to cancel the earlier process and decide to issue fresh NIT. It may be another question that in case the file had been misplaced in the office of the respondents a proper enquiry should have been made or police should have been

¶13

Patna High Court CWJC No.11200 of 2011 (5) dt.19-11-2013

¶14

informed if it was suspected that the file was misplaced deliberately by some vested interest.

¶15

In the circumstances, this Court does not find it a fit case to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ application is disposed of.

¶16

However, if the fresh NIT is issued petitioner will be at liberty to participate in the tender process.

¶17

(Jayanandan Singh, J)

¶18

Arvind/-

Manoj Kumar Pandey v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Pandey v. the Union of India 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

Katihar Jute Mills Limited and O Vs the Bihar State Financial Corp

Neelam Chaudhary Vs Authorized Officer, Allahabad Bank

M/S Medicon International Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Sita Ram Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

M/S Krishna Furniture House Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Jihuli Construction Pvt.Ltd. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.