Dismissed

Vishwa Construction Company v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC18 Jul 2014CWJC/9424/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed the petitioner's writ filed to quash the rejection of their technical bid. The Court held that the petitioner's affidavit filed in Hindi deviated from the prescribed English format by including extra clauses and deleting required information, thus disentitling the petitioner from consideration.

What did the court decide?

Writ application for quashing the order of rejection was dismissed.

Vishwa Construction Company Vs The State Of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9424 of 2014

¶3

====================================================== Vishwa Construction Company through its Partner Bishwanath Prasad son of Late Ramautar Prasad, Resident of Balua Chowk, Gopalpur, P.S.Motihari Town, District- East Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Minor Water Resources Department, Bishesharaiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar 2. The Chief Engineer (North) Tube Well Wing, Minor Water Resources Department, Sherpur Gandak Colony, Muzaffarpur 3. The Co-ordinator, Minor Water Resources Department, Bisheshraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 4. The Superintending Engineer, Tube-Well Circle, Minor Water Resources Department, Kalambag Chowk, Muzaffarpur 5. The Executive Engineer, Tube-well Division, Minor Water Resources Department, Motihari 6. S.S.S. Construction, Abhay Gupta (Partner) Son of Kailash Sah, VillageSita-kund, P.S.- Damodarpur, District- East Champaran .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Tondon, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manikant Mishra, G.P. 25 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶4

2 18-07-2014 Heard learned counsel for the parties as with regard to the following relief prayed in this writ application:-

¶5

"For quashing the order as made available on mail dated 23.5.2014 by which the technical bid of the petitioner has been rejected and further be pleased to commanding the respondents to get the technical bid of the petitioner be verified by other Committee and if it is found valid, clarified it for financial bid along with financial bid of the Respondent no. 6."

¶6

It appears on perusal of record that the petitioner's

¶7

tender has been rejected on the ground that he did not submit the required affidavit in the prescribed format as laid down in

¶8

Patna High Court CWJC No.9424 of 2014 (2) dt.18-07-2014

¶9

2/5

¶10

concerned N.I.T. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in fact, had not even enclosed the entire Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) much leas prescribed format of the affidavit in this writ petition. He however now in course of making his submission, has produced copy of such prescribed affidavit, which reads as follows:

¶11

AFFIDAVIT 1. I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that all the statements made in the required attachments are true and correct. 2. The undersigned also hereby certifies that neither our firm M/s______________ has been blacklisted not has abandoned any work in any government department. India nor any contract awarded to us for such works have been rescinded, during last five years prior to the date of this bid. 3. The undersigned hereby authorizes and request (s) any bank, person, firm or corporation to furnish pertinent information deemed necessary and requested by the Department to verify this statement or regarding my (our) competence and general reputation. 4. The undersigned understand and agrees that further qualifying information may be requested, and agrees to furnish any such information at the request of the Department Project implementing agency. (Signed by an Authorised Officer of the Firm) ________ Title of Officer ________ Name of Firm ________ DATE_

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner then proceeds to submit that an affidavit was actually filed by the petitioner in Hindi which is exactly to the same effect as in the aforesaid prescribed format of affidavit English.

¶13

This Court would find it difficult in accepting such submission because a bare comparison of contents of the affidavit, as filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-4, reading as follows:-

¶14

le{k]

¶15

Patna High Court CWJC No.9424 of 2014 (2) dt.18-07-2014

¶16

3/5

¶17

ys[; izek.kd

¶18

eksfrgkjh] iwohZ pEikj.kA

¶19

'kiFk i=

¶20

dk;Z dh fufonk esa eSa ¼uke½ fo'oukFk izlkn oYn jkeorkj izlkn QeZ dk uke& es0 fo'o dUlVzD'ku dEiuh cyqvkpd eksfrgkjh ij ------------------------------------------------------------ lfEefyr gksus ds bPNqd gS%&

¶21

1- eSa 'kiFkiwoZd ?kks"k.kk djrk gwW fd eSa@esjs }kjk izkf/kd`r O;fDr@ikVZuj fdlh Hkh vkijkf/kd fdz;k esa 'kkfey ugha gSa esjs dEiuh ds fdlh ikVZuj }kjk dksbZ vkijkf/kd dk;Z ugha fd;k x;k gSA

¶22

2- eSa 'kiFkiwoZd ?kks"k.kk djrk gwW fd ;fn esjs O;olk; esa dksbZ deh ik;h tkrh gS vkSj foHkkx esjs fo:n~/k dk;Zokgh djrk gS rks eq>s Lohdkj gksxkA

¶23

3- ;g fd] esjk fjLrsnkj duh; vfHk;ark ls ysdj v/kh{k.k vfHk;ark rd ;k ys[kiky ds in ij dk;Zjr ugha gSA ,oa bu lHkh esa dksbZ fjVk;MZ foHkkxh; inkf/kdkjh esjs QeZ esa dk;Zjr ugha gSA

¶24

4- ;g fd] 'kiFkiwoZd ?kks"k.kk djrk gwW fd inkf/kdkfj;ksa ,oa deZpkfj;ksa ds lkFk esjk O;ogkj lkSE; ,oa lkSgknZiw.kZ jgsxkA

¶25

5- ;g fd] fufonk feyus ij 25 izfr'kr viuh iwath yxkmaxkA

¶26

6- ;g fd] esjk QeZ dkyhd`r ugha gSA

¶27

7- ;g fd] mijksDr 'kiFk i= esa nh x;h tkudkjh vlR; gksus ij eq>s fufonk ls oafpr fd;k tk ldrk gSA

¶28

8- ;g fd] esjs }kjk fufonk ds lkFk layXu lHkh vfHkys[k lgha gSA blds lR;kiu djus ij ;fn dkxtkr QthZ@=qfViw.kZ ik;k tkrk gS rks foHkkx eq>ij dkyhd`r djus lfgr dksbZ Hkh dkuquh dk;Zokgh djus ds fy, Lora= gSA

¶29

9- ;g fd] eSa viuk fuca/ku dk lcysV ugha fd;k gwWA

¶30

10- ;g fd] esjk QeZ fdlh Hkh foHkkx ds fMckj lwph esa lfEefyr ugha gSA

¶31

11- ;g fd] ;fn eq>s ;g dk;Z vkoafVr fd;k tkrk gS rks eSas foHkkx }kjk fu/kkZfjr le; lhek ds vUnj lekIr dj nqaxkA

¶32

12- ;g fd] eq>s dgha ls Hkh Rescined ugha fd;k x;k gSA

¶33

Patna High Court CWJC No.9424 of 2014 (2) dt.18-07-2014

¶34

4/5

¶35

13- ;g fd] esjs QeZ ij fdlh foHkkx esa dksbZ dk;Z yfEcr ugha gSA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 14- ;g fd] esjs lkFk Bsdk laca/kh dk;Z dks lEikfnr djus gsrq vuqHkoh Lukrd vfHk;ark Jh dk'khukFk izlkn xqIrk] cztfd'kksj JhokLro] vkj0 ch0 latho dqekj 'k=q/ku ¼eSdsfudy fMIyksek Lukrd½] iznhi dqekj ¼bysDVzhdy fMIyksek Lukrd] vuqHkoh feL=h ,oa LVkQ lHkh rjg ds Bsdk laca/kh dk;ksZa ds fy, vko';d midj.k] dk;ksZ a dh xq.koRrk tkap djus gsrq xq.k fu;a=.k iz;ksx'kkyk dk vko';d midj.k ,oa lkt leku gSA 15- ;g fd] esjs QeZ esa dksbZ Hkh foHkkxh; fjVk;MZ bathfu;j ;k ,dkmaV vkWfQlj dk;Zjr ugha gSA 16- ;g fd] bl fufonk dk oS/krk 180 fnukas ds fy, ekU; jgsxkA

¶36

lR;kiu& eSa iqu% lp lp c;ku djrk gwW fd mijksDr lHkh ckrsa esjh tkudkjh esa lgh ok nq:Lr gSA

¶37

g0@& vLi"V g0@& fo'oukFk izlkn igpkudRrkZ 'kiFkdRrkZ

¶38

would itself go to show that the petitioner had made several changes which are not found in the prescribed format in English. Infact the petitioner had also gone to delete certain information in his affidavit filed in Hindi as against what in English was required in the prescribed format. The fact thus remains that the petitioner had, in the affidavit, not given the requisite information as per the prescribed format, which would automatically disentitle him from being considered.

¶39

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even respondent no. 6 has given a similar affidavit

¶40

Patna High Court CWJC No.9424 of 2014 (2) dt.18-07-2014

¶41

5/5

¶42

alike one given by the petitioner but then also his technical bid has been opened.

¶43

In absence of proof of such allegation, this Court is not prepared to accept a bald assertion made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In any event, the respondents are required to maintain the same yardstick and therefore if it is found that the respondent no. 6 also has not given the affidavit in the prescribed format, his offer will also meet the same fate as has been meted out to the petitioner.

¶44

Let it be, however, made clear that this Court has not given its final opinion as with regard to discrepancy in the affidavit of the respondent no. 6 and, therefore, it will always be open for the respondents to examine this aspect afresh without being in any way influenced/prejudiced by anything said in this order.

¶45

In the result, this writ application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶46

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)

¶47

Sujit/-

¶48

Vishwa Construction Company v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishwa Construction Company 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

M/s Magadh Construction Vs The Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd. and Ors.

Satyam Alok Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Madhukaran Prasad Vs The State Bank Of India and Ors.

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.