Disposed

Vishwanath Kumar Sah v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Patna HC16 Dec 2013CWJC/5511/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged selection of respondent for generator installation, claiming bias. Court found no relation between selected vendor and bank staff of relevant branch. Petitioner directed to approach bank authority. Application disposed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach concerned authority of the Bank; application disposed as objection not meriting consideration.

Vishwanath Kumar Sah Vs The Union Of India and… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5511 of 2013

¶2

====================================================== 1. Vishwanath Kumar Sah S/O Mr. Laxmi Sah R/Ovillage- Meena Bazar, Madhubai, P.S.- Madhubani, District- Madhubani .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Branch Manager State Bank of India, Saurath Branch, Madhubani 2. The Chief Manager (Administration) State Bank of India, Regional Branch Office, Region-Iv, Madhubani 3. The Regional Manager, Region-iv Regional Business Office, Kala Bhawan Road, Purnea 4. The Regional Manager, Region-Iv Regional Branch Office, Madhubani Camp, Purnea, State Bank Of India, Purnea, Main Branch, Purnea 5. Shailesh Chandra Jha S/O Surendra Jha R/O Village- Tirpur, P.S.Madhubani, District- Madhubani .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S. Azeem Ms G. Nisha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶3

2 16-12-2013 Petitioner has filed this writ application challenging selection of respondent no.6 for installation of Generator in Saurath, Madhubani Branch of the State Bank of India only on the ground that he is related to one staff of the Bank and hence he could not participate in the tender process. From the pleadings made in paragraph 14 of the writ application itself, it appears that respondent no.6 has been said to be a relation of a staff of the Bank at Rahika Branch. Tender was issued for installation of Generator in Madhubani Branch of the Bank. Thus, in view of own stand of the petitioner, respondent no.6 was not related to any staff of Madhubani Branch of the

¶4

Patna High Court CWJC No.5511 of 2013 (2) dt.16-12-2013

¶5

2/2

¶6

Bank. Hence, objection raised by the petitioner for selection of respondent no.6 does not merit consideration.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had supplied electricity to the Madhubani Branch of the Bank through Generator for long. Therefore, he should have been given preference by the respondents and should have been allowed to continue at negotiated rate at least.

¶8

For this purpose, petitioner has liberty to approach

¶9

the concerned authority of the Bank.

¶10

This application is disposed of.

¶11

(Jayanandan Singh, J)

¶12

Pradeep/-

Vishwanath Kumar Sah v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishwanath Kumar Sah 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

Sunil Kumar Singh and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Nandan Sharma Vs the Life Insurance Corp.of Ind

Hari Narayan Prasad Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

M/s Shiv Shakti Traders Vs The East Central Railway and Ors.

Surendra Prasad Ojha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.