Dismissed

M/s Beekad Hotels P Ltd. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC8 Jul 2014CWJC/4912/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the award of an exclusive liquor manufacturing tender to three respondents, claiming they failed eligibility criteria regarding experience and turnover. The High Court dismissed the writ, stating it would not examine the veracity of balance sheets or interfere with the State Government's subjective satisfaction or uniform tender process unless malicious.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/s Beekad Hotels P Ltd. Vs The State Of Bihar… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4912 of 2014

¶3

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

¶4

M/s Beekad Hotels (P) Limited, Having Its Registered Office At 78A, Burdwan Compound, Ranchi- 934 001 (Jharkhand) Through Its Director Krishna Kumar Singh, Son Of Shri Ayodhya Singh, Resident Of House No. 156, Hospital Road, P.S. Siwan, District Siwan

¶5

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary, Department Of Excise And Prohibition, Bihar, Patna

¶8

The Secretary, Excise And Prohibition Department, Bihar, Patna

¶9

The Excise Commissioner, Bihar, Patna

¶10

The Tender Scrutiny Committee, Excise And Prohibition Department, Government Of Bihar, Through The Excise Commissioner, Bihar, Patna

¶11

M/S Spicy Beverage Pvt. Limited, Having Its Registered Office At Gandhi Road, Dhansar, District Dhanbad, Through Its Director Kamlesh Kumar Sinha, Son Of Shri Lakshami Narain Sinha, Resident Of MohallaSalimpur Ahra, Kadamkuan, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna

¶12

Shri Hitesh Mehta, Son Of Shri Binod Mehta, Resident Of Salimpur Ahra, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, District Patna

¶13

M/s Shipra Beverages Private Limited, Having Its Registered Office At Karmalichak, Begumpur, Patna City, District- Patna Through Its Director Sudhir Sharan, Son Of Kamaldeo Prasad Srivastava, Resident Of Mahesh Nagar, Road No. 1, P.S. Patliputra, District- Patna

¶14

.... .... Respondents

¶15

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Harsh Singh, Advocate For the Respondents 5, 6 & 7:Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate For the Respondent State: Lalit Lishore (P.A.A.G), Sr. Advocate Mr. Vikash Kumar, A.C. to P.A.A.G.

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.4912 of 2014 (10) dt.08-07-2014

¶17

2/4

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶20

And

¶21

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶22

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶23

10 08-07-2014

¶24

This Petition under Article-226 of the Constitution is filed by one M/s. Beekad Hotels (P) Limited to challenge the decision of the State Government in awarding exclusive privilege for manufacture and supply of country liquor to the respondent Nos.10, 11 and 12. Challenge is on the ground that the respondent Nos.10, 11 and 12 failed to fulfil the requirements or eligibility under the tender notice. The said respondents being not eligible for grant of the exclusive privilege, the award of contract in their favour is not sustainable.

¶25

Learned counsel Mr. Jitendra Singh has appeared for the petitioner. He has submitted that in the brochure published on 24^th October 2013, the Government had specifically provided for three years’ experience and the total turnover of Rs.5,00,00, 000.00. He has submitted that the said provision will necessarily require three years’ experience in manufacture and supply of country liquor and a turnover of Rs.5,00,00,000.00 in the said business. However, the State Government has wrongly construed the said provision to read a total turn over of Rs.5,00,00,000.00 from any source or any business. He has submitted that the State Government has erred in including or taking into consideration the turnover in other business/businesses of the said respondents. He has also submitted that the respondent No.11 had earlier been granted licence. For breach of terms and conditions of licence he was

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.4912 of 2014 (10) dt.08-07-2014

¶27

3/4

¶28

penalized. He had also lost before the Board of Revenue. Such a person could not have been qualified for a fresh licence. He has assailed the balance sheets produced by the respondent Nos.10 and 12. He has submitted that the balance sheets produced by the said respondents in support of their claim are manipulated and do not reflect the genuine turnover of the said respondents. It is the submission of Mr. Jitendra Singh that none of the said respondents is qualified. Their technical bids ought to have been rejected by the State Government. He has also relied upon Section-42(1)(h)(i) of the Bihar Excise Act and the judgment and order passed in the matter of BHONDU CHOUDHARY v. STATE OF BIHAR and others (1964 B.L.J.R. 351).

¶29

We see no substance in this writ petition. While considering the terms in the tender notice, we are not required to fall back upon the principles of interpretation of statutes. If the State Government has interpreted the requirement in a particular manner and has uniformly applied the same to all tenderers, we see no matter for interference with the process of selection adopted by the State Government.

¶30

As to the balance sheets, we must note that it is the subjective satisfaction of the State Government. This Court exercising power of judicial review will not examine the balance sheets submitted by the tenderers for their veracity, nor are we equipped for such exercise; nor shall we interfere with the subjective satisfaction recorded by the State Government unless it is established before us that such satisfaction is malicious or is arrived at on extraneous materials. Similarly, in respect of respondent No.11 we believe the State Government is aware that the respondent No.11 had earlier been penalized for short and

¶31

Patna High Court CWJC No.4912 of 2014 (10) dt.08-07-2014

¶32

4/4

¶33

defective supply by the respondent No.11. It is not the case of the petitioner that the incident of penalty has disqualified the respondent 11. In absence of the disqualification earned by the said respondent, the State Government is not debarred from awarding the contract. If the said respondent has earned the said contract by fulfilling all criteria, we shall not interfere with the action of the State Government.

¶34

No other contention is raised before us.

¶35

For the aforesaid reasons, the Petition is dismissed in

¶36

limine.

¶37

(R.M. Doshit, CJ)

¶38

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)

¶39

K.C.Jha/-

¶40

M/s Beekad Hotels P Ltd. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/s Beekad Hotels P Ltd. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State Of Bihar and Ors. Vs Ramadhar Singh

Om Prakash Tiwary Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sanjeet Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Purushottam Kumar Singh and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Manoj Kumar Singh Vs The Union Of India and Ors.