Disposed

M/s Pratap Graphics v. The Chairman Bihar State Madarsa Education Board and Ors.

Patna HC14 Feb 2013CWJC/193/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an agreement reached by all parties during hearing, the Petitioner is allotted 50% of the tender work at the lowest rate, with remaining work shared equally between two other private respondents, subject to the Board's allocation decisions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be allotted 50% of the work value at Rs. 6.99 per candidate; remaining work shared equally between Respondents 5 and 6 in accordance with the Board.

M/s Pratap Graphics Vs The Chairman Bihar… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.193 of 2013

¶2

====================================================== M/s. Pratap Graphics through its proprietor Uday Kumar S/o Krishna Ballav Prasad Singh Resident of Flat No. 101, B. Block, Madhuri Villa, P.S. North S.K. Puri, Patna-13, having its office at 6A/9, Vivekanand Marg, P.S. North S.K. Puri, District Patna. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The Chairman Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, 5, Bidyapati Marg, P.S. Kotwali, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Bidyapati Marg, P.S. Kotwali, Patna. 3. The Special Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Principal Secretary, Deptt. of Education Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5. NICT Computing System Pvt. Ltd., Boring Road, Patna 6. Dynamic Computer System, Tarkeshwar Path, Boring Road, Patna 7. Bihar State Madarsa Education Board through its Secretary, Bidyapati Marg, P.S. Kotwali, Patna .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : M/S Chittranjan Sinha, Sr.Advocate with S.S.Sundaram, Advocate For the Board : M/S Raghib Ahsan, Sr.Advocate with Anil Kumar Mishra, Md.Rashid Alam, Advocates For Respondent No.5 : Mr.S.Jamil Akhtar, Advocate For Respondent No.6 : Mr.Javed Aslam, Advocate For the State : Mr.Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER

¶3

5 14-02-2013 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to add the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board through its Secretary as party respondent No.7 to the writ application in the course of the day.

¶4

Mr.S.Jamil Akhtar, Advocate files Vakalatnama for respondent No.5.

¶5

Patna High Court CWJC No.193 of 2013 (5) dt.14-02-2013

¶6

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels for the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, private respondents and the State of Bihar.

¶8

The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing short tender notice published in ‘Prabhat Khabar’ on 21.12.2012 by respondent Madarsa Education Board by which the earlier tender notice dated 17.11.2012 published in the newspapers for the same work has been cancelled and a fresh tender has been invited and for consequential reliefs.

¶9

The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the earlier tender notice on 17.11.2012 the petitioner after the technical and financial bids as the lowest tenderer had agreed to work at the rate of Rs.14.50 per candidate. Subsequently on negotiation the petitioner had agreed to work at Rs.11.20 per candidate. However, the petitioner was not agreeable to distribution of work among other tenderers also and for the said reason the respondent Board cancelled the tender and issued a fresh tender notice. It is pointed out that in the earlier tender notice there is no statement that the work would be divided among various tenderers. However, in the tender application form it was stated that the authority concerned would have the right to distribute the work among the tenderers without assigning any reason thereon. In the fresh tender notice it

¶10

Patna High Court CWJC No.193 of 2013 (5) dt.14-02-2013

¶11

¶12

has been provided that in consideration of the limit of time and importance of the work, the work may be distributed among more than one person on the lowest approved rate and they would have no right to complain. The petitioner having approached this Court against the second short tender notice did not apply pursuant to the second tender but during the pendency of the writ application other tenderers applied and it has come out that the lowest tender quoted is by respondent M/s. NICT Computing System at the rate of Rs.6.99 per candidate. The second lowest tenderer in the fresh tender notice is respondent Dynamic Computer System which has quoted at the rate of Rs.9.25 per candidate but it is informed by learned counsel for the respondent Dynamic Computer System that it is prepared to accept whatever share of the work would be given by the Board at the lowest rate of Rs.6.99 per candidate.

¶13

Various submissions were made by learned counsels for the parties when the matter was being heard earlier but ultimately all the parties agree that in the interest of the students and candidates who are to appear in the ensuing examinations, the matter should not be allowed to drag on and it would be acceptable to all the parties if 50% value of the tender work is allotted to the petitioner at the newly quoted rate of Rs.6.99 per candidate and the other two tenderers will accept the remaining

¶14

Patna High Court CWJC No.193 of 2013 (5) dt.14-02-2013

¶15

¶16

work as may be allotted to them by the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board. It is, accordingly, prayed by learned counsels for the petitioner, private respondents and the respondent Bihar State Madarsa Education Board that the writ application may be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid statements made on behalf of the parties.

¶17

In view of the stand of the parties which is also in keeping with the interest of the candidates who have to appear in the examination which it is informed is to commence from March, 2013 onwards, this Court disposes of the present writ application in terms of the aforesaid understanding reached between the parties, i.e., the petitioner shall be allotted 50% of the value of the entire work at the lowest quoted rate of Rs.6.99 per candidate after the second tender process and the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 shall also be allotted the remaining work in ratio equal to each other, the details with respect to which may be decided by the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board.

¶18

This Court, however, would like to make few comments about the manner in which the tender process has been carried out. Neither the first tender nor the second tender notice clearly lays down the number of candidates who are to be allotted the contract on the L-1 rates and the ratio of the work to be allotted to them. In

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.193 of 2013 (5) dt.14-02-2013

¶20

¶21

future such tender should be in clear and transparent terms keeping in view the fact that the examinations have to be conducted within a time frame as it affects the candidates who appear in such examinations and the Board must ensure that in future tenders such terms and conditions are clearly stated so that there is no scope of any further litigation in the matter. The selection of tenderers should also be in order of lowest quoted rates and not random. It would be open to the Board to decide that for each of the three examinations to be conducted by it a separate contractor would be given the tender but in what manner and order should be clearly spelt out in the tender notice that is taken out in the future.

¶22

The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.

¶23

(Ramesh Kumar Datta, J)

¶24

spal/-

M/s Pratap Graphics v. The Chairman Bihar State Madarsa Education Board and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Pratap Graphics v. The Chairman Bihar State Madarsa Education Board 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

Abu Muzaffar Alam Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Pankaj Kumar Vs the Stae of Bihar and Ors.

Dr. Kiran Saksena Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ghanshyam Kumar Singh Vs M/S Bharat Petroleum Corporati

Arun Kumar Agrawal Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Subhash Chandra Jaiswal Vs the Union of India and Ors.