Disposed

Baban Pandey v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC21 Jul 2014CWJC/12121/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Patna disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner sought a contract for a public works road construction. The court held the government policy on rejecting bids below 10% margin valid but directed the authorities to consider the petitioner for contract award if he offers a lower rate during negotiation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be considered for contract award jointly with Arun Kumar Singh if he remains lowest bidder by offering rate below 10% in negotiation.

Baban Pandey Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Company and Corporate | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12121 of 2014

¶3

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

¶4

Baban Pandey, son of Late Ram Gachhi Pandey, resident of Village Jogiya, P.O. Labhai, Dist. Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

1. The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

1. The Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶9

1. The Chief Engineer, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶10

1. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department (Works), Sasaram, Rohtas.

¶11

1. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Bikramganj, Dist. Rohtas.

¶12

1. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Bhabhua, Kaimur. .... .... Respondent/s

¶13

====================================================== Appearance :

¶14

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Mohan For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay, SC20

¶15

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶16

2 21-07-2014 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application

¶18

reads as follows:-

¶19

“1. That the present writ petition is being filed on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of a writ/writs in the nature of a writ of mandamus commanding therein the respondents to grant the tender-works to the petitioner in respect to Tender no. RWD/PMGSY/HQ/ET/14-002 for District- Rohtas at Serial no. 35 for construction of Aara-Sasaram P.W.D. Road Terkipul to Nuawan Lahtan Canan (BR-28R-347) In Bikramganj Block incluidng maintenance for five years and for quashing of

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.12121 of 2014 (2) dt.21-07-2014

¶21

¶22

Memo no. 2046(S) dated 06.03.2014 (Annexure-5) declaring the same redundant in the present tender and further for relief/reliefs for which in the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner may entitle too.”

¶23

This Court infact is fully satisfied with the government policy dated 6.3.2014, relevant portion whereof reads as follows:-

¶24

“4. leh{kksijkar izfr”kr nj (inpercentage rate tender) if)fr esa izkIr dh tkus okyh lHkh izdkj dh fufonkvksa esa fufofnr nj dh U;wure vf/klhek ifjek.k foi= dh nj ¼jkf”k½ ls 10 izfr”kr de rd fu/kkZfjr dh tkrh gSA 10 izfr”kr ls T;knk de nj m)`r jgus okys fufonk,a vekU; ekuh tk;sxhA ”

¶25

As a matter of fact when the contractor’s margin is itself only up to 10% of the estimated amount any contractor, seeking to offer to work at the rate below 10%, definitely is going to do so at the cost of quality of the work. Mr. Upadhyaya learned counsel for the State in fact is also correct when he submits that economically such offer cannot be held to be viable and, therefore, the Government has a right to reject such offer at the outset.

¶26

Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is prepared to revise his rate below 10% and, to that extent, he may be allowed to participate in a rate negotiation.

¶27

Patna High Court CWJC No.12121 of 2014 (2) dt.21-07-2014

¶28

¶29

Considering the fact that the petitioner was the lowest bidder after his technical bid had been found to be satisfactory, this Court would direct the concerned authority to consider the case of the petitioner along with Arun Kumar Singh and award him the contract, if he still remains as a lowest bidder by offering his rate below 10% in course of negotiation of rate.

¶30

This Court however hopes and believes that the authority will take a final decision with regard to award of contract expeditiously preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶31

With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of.

¶32

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)

¶33

Rishi/-

¶34

Baban Pandey v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baban Pandey 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

Rampriya Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Vish Nath Sharma @ Vishwa Nath Sharma and Ors. Vs The Punjab National Bank and Ors.

Vijay Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ramji Paswan Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Naveen Yadav Vs The Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank and Anr.

Gargi Kumari Vs the Indian Oil Corporation andOR