Allowed

Paramhans Ray v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC1 Aug 2019CWJC/11952/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court allowed the petitioner's writ petition, quashing the rejection of his technical bid for a transportation contract imposed due to the absence of a labour license, citing conflicting government guidelines.

What did the court decide?

The decision of the District Transport Committee rejecting the petitioner's technical bid is quashed. The Committee is directed to consider the tender afresh.

Paramhans Ray Vs The State of Bihar — Public Procurement and Tenders | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11952 of 2019

¶2

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

¶3

Paramhans Ray aged about 34 years, Male, Son of Late Shashi Pal Ray Resident of Ward No. 3, Dadhia Asadhar, Supal, P.S. Angarghat, DistrictSamastipur.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Transport Department Govt. of Bihar.

¶7

The District Magistrate, Samastipur.

¶8

The District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, district Transport Committee, Samastipur.

¶9

District Complaint Committee, Samastipur.

¶10

Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Ltd., Khadya Bhawan, Daroga Rai Path, R. Block, road No. 2, Patna.

¶11

The Managing Director, Bihar State food and Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. Khadya Bhawan, Daroga Rai Path, R. Block, Road No. 2, Patna.

¶12

The Deputy General Manager, Transportation, Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Ltd., Khadya Bhawan, Daroga Rai Path, r. Block, Road No. 2, Patna.

¶13

The District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Ltd., Samastipur.

¶14

... ... Respondent/s

¶15

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Sr. Advocate Mr.Sanjeet Kumar, Advocate Mr. Digvijay Narayan Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT

¶16

Date : 01-08-2019

¶17

heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner

¶18

and learned counsel representing the Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Limited.

¶19

Petitioner in the present case is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the decision as contained in the proceeding

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.11952 of 2019 dt.01-08-2019 2/10

¶21

dated 15.01.2019 of the district Transport Committee, Samastipur with regard to the petitioner whereby the technical bid of the petitioner submitted in pursuance of the NIT No. 816 dated 17.09.2018 floated for selection of Transportation-cum-Handling & Delivery Contractor (Door Step Delivery) has been rejected on the solitary ground that the petitioner did not submit a labour license in his tender form.

¶22

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that one of the conditions of the tender document requires in Clause XVIII which reads as under:

¶23

“(XVIII) All the persons employed by the bidder if appointed as Handling-cumTransporting Contractor, shall be engaged by him as his own servants in all respects and the responsibility under the worksmen Compensation Act or Employees Provident Fund Act or Contract Act & Bonus Act any other similar enactment in respect of all such personnel shall be that of the bidder. In any case the Corporation will not be responsible for making any kind of payment to employees of the bidders under any statutory provisions.”

¶24

It is submitted that perhaps because of the aforesaid condition the District Selection Committee has

¶25

rejected the technical bid of the petitioner in want of labour licence. It is however pointed out that the petitioner had

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.11952 of 2019 dt.01-08-2019 3/10

¶27

applied for a labour licence before the Labour Superintendent Office, Samastipur. The Labour Superintendent, Samastipur declined to issue labour licence in view of letter no. 881 dated 08.03.2016 issued by the Labour Resources Department, Government of Bihar. A copy of the certificate dated 03.12.2018 communicated to the petitioner vide letter no. 955 dated 03.12.2018 under the signature of the Labour Superintendent, Samastipur, is contained in Annexure ‘3’ to the writ application. It is submitted that despite clarifications issued by the Labour Resources Department vide it’s letter no. 881 dated 08.03.2016, (Annexure P/4 to the writ application), the District Transport Committee did not take care of the same and proceeded to reject the tender of the petitioner on the aforesaid grounds.

¶28

A counter affidavit has been filed in this case on behalf of respondent no. 8. The counter affidavit does not answer the specific issue raised by the petitioner in the writ application. It is submitted that the District Manager, State Food Corporation, Samastipur has vide his letter no. 91 dated 05.02.2019 requested the Deputy General Manager

¶29

Patna High Court CWJC No.11952 of 2019 dt.01-08-2019 4/10

¶30

(Transport) for further guideline in the matter. The only plea taken is that the petitioner was liable to submit all the documents and where he has not submitted all the documents, the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner cannot be faulted with.

¶31

Having heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation as also on perusal of the records, this court finds that the most important issue which has been raised in the writ application referring to Annexure ‘P/3’ and ‘P/4’ to the writ application have not at all been addressed and dealt with in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 8.

¶32

Annexure P/4 to the writ application reads as

¶33

under:

¶34

i= l[a;k& 4lh 04@2016 J0la0 881fcgkj ljdkj Je lalk/ku foHkkx ¼Je i{k½ izs’kd] nhid dqekj flag] lfpoA lsok esa] iz/kku lfpo@lfpo] xg foHkkx@mtkZ foHkkx@df’k [email protected] fodkl [email protected] dk;Z foHkkx@ty lalk/ku foHkkx@uxj fodkl ,oa vkokl foHkkx@iapk;rh jkt foHkkx@ou ,oa Ik;kZoj.k foHkkx@Hkou fuekZ.k

¶35

Patna High Court CWJC No.11952 of 2019 dt.01-08-2019 5/10

¶36

foHkkx@;kstuk ,oa fodkl foHkkx@LokLF; foHkkx@y?kq ty lalk/ku foHkkx@yksd vfHklapu foHkkx@f”k{kk foHkkx@lgdkfjr foHkkx] fcgkj iVukA fo’k;%& Bsdk etnwj ¼fofu;eu ,oa mUewyu½ vf/kfu;e] 1970 ds vUrxZr laosnd dks vuqKfIr (License) fn;s tkus ds laca/k esaA egk”k;]

¶37

mi;qZDr fo’k; ds laca/k esa dguk gS fd Bsdk etnwj ¼fofu;eu ,oa mUewyu½ vf/kfu;e] 1970 dh /kkjk 12 ds vUrxZr laosndksa dh vuqKfIr fuxZr dh tkrh gSA fcgkj Bsdk etnwj ¼fofu;eu ,oa mUewyu½ fu;ekoyh] 1972 ds fu;e&21 ¼2½ ds vuqlkj laosnd }kjk ykbZlsal ds fy, fn;s tkus okys vkosnu ds lkFk lkFk eq[; fu;kstd ds Lrj ls fuxZr izi= V vuqyXud ds :i esa layXu fd;k tkuk gS] ftlesa ;g mYysf[kr gksrk gS fd laosnd dks eq[; fu;kstd }kjk fu;ksftr fd;k x;k gS] ijarq O;ogkj esa ,slk ns[kk tk jgk gS fd laosnd dk;Z vkoafVr ls iwoZ gh dk;Z foHkkx ds {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa ls izi= V izkIr dj ysrs gSa rFkk ykbZlsal fuxZr djus gsrq nokc cukrs gSaA ;g Hkh ns[kk tk jgk gS fd dk;Z foHkkxksa }kjk lafonk dh “krksZ esa ,d “krZ ;g Hkh j[kk tkrk gS fd laosnd yscj ykbZlsal miyC/k djkosaA ;g loZFkk voS/kkfud gS D;ksafd fcgkj Bsdk etnwj ¼fofu;eu ,oa mUewyu½ fu;ekoyh 1972 ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr Bsdk etnwjh ls lacaf/kr ykbZlsal dk;Z vkoafVr fd;s tkus ds i”pkr gh fuxZr fd;k tkuk gSA vr% mi;qZDr ds vkyksd esa vuqjks/k gS fd lHkh {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa ,oa vkids foHkkx ds v/khu fuekZ.k fu;eksa dks ;g ijkef”kZr djs fd fufonk ds vUrxZr dk;Z vkoafVr djus gsrq yscj ykbZlsal ¼Bsdk vf/kfue; ds vUrxZr½ dh vfuok;Zrk dks lekIr fd;k tk;A lkFk gh dsoy mUgha laosndksa dks izi= V fuxZr fd;s tk;s ftUgsa lacaf/kr dk;Z gsrq Work Order fuxZr gks pqdk gSA

¶38

fo”oklHkkth g0@&vLi’V ¼nhid dqekj flag½** The fact that petitioner had applied for a labour

¶39

Patna High Court CWJC No.11952 of 2019 dt.01-08-2019 6/10

¶40

licence and then he was communicated that the labour licence would be issued after work order is issued by the principal employer has not been denied by the respondents. The communication in this regard issued by the Labour Superintendent, Samastipur, as contained in Anenxure ‘3’ to the writ application reads as under:

¶41

“LABOUR SUPERINTENDENT OFFICE SAMASTIPUR

¶42

To whom it may concern,

¶43

“Licence has been issued under contract Labour Act 1970 after Work order issued by Principal employer. Without work order contract Labour Licence is not issued according to letter issued by Principal Secretary, Labour Resource Department, Bihar Govt. Patna vide letter no. 881 dated 08.03.2016.

¶44

letter no. 955 dated 03.12.2018 Samastipur

¶45

copy to- Paramhance roy, Jitwarpur, Vishanpur Samastipur. Copy to-Dm SFC Samastipur for kind information.

¶46

In fact on record there is a letter no. 92 dated

¶47

05.02.2019 written by the District Manager of the Corporation to the Deputy General Manager (Transport) (Annexure ‘5’) which is quoted hereunder for a ready reference:-

¶48

^^i=kad 92 fnukad 05@02@19 izs’kd] ftyk izac/kd] leLrhiqjA lsok esa]

¶49

Patna High Court CWJC No.11952 of 2019 dt.01-08-2019 7/10

¶50

mi egkizca/kd ¼ifjogu½] jkT; [kk| fuxe] eq[;ky;] iVukA fo’k; %& ifjogu&lg&gFkkyu vfHkdrkZ ¼eq[;½ ,oa ifjogu] gFkkyu&lg& vkiwfrZ vfHkdÙkkZ ¼Mh0,l0Mh0½ dh fu;qfDr gsrq E- Tendering ds ek/;e ls vkeaf=r fufonkvksa dk fu’iknu ds laca/k esaA

¶51

izlax %& bl dk;kZy; dk i=kad&91] fnukad&05-02-19 egk”k;]

¶52

mi;qZDr fo’k;d izklafxd i= dk d`i;k Lekj.k fd;k tk;A lwfpr djuk gS fd ifjogu&lg& gFkkyu vfHkdrkZ ¼eq[;½ ,oa ifjogu] gFkkyu&lg&vkiwfrZ vfHkdÙkkZ ¼Mh0,l0Mh0½ dh fu;qfDr gsrq E-Tendering ds ek/;e fufonk vkeaf=r dh xbZ Fkh] mlesa vafdr fufonk “kÙkksZ] ftlds vk/kkj ij dfri; fufonknkrkvksa dh fufonk Lohdkj ugha dh xbZ gSA mu fufonknkrkvksa }kjk fuEukafdr fcUnqvksa ij vkifÙk;k¡ mBkbZ xbZ gS%&

¶53

➢ GST, Labour Licence, All tender documents signed with seal.

¶54

1½ GST%& pq¡fd vuqnkfur [kk|kUu ij ljdkj }kjk th0,l0Vh0 ykxw ugha fd;k x;k gSA blfy, fufonknkrkvksa dk dguk fd th0,l0Vh0 ds vHkko esa fufonknkrkvksa dh fufonk;sa vLohd`r ugha dh tk ldrh gSA

¶55

2½ Labour Licence%& yscj ykbZlsal ugha jgus ds dkj.k dfri; fufonknkrkvksa dh fufonk;sa ftyk ifjogu lfefr }kjk vLohd`r dh xbZ gSA bl laca/k esa fufonknkrkvksa }kjk Je lalk/ku foHkkx ¼Je i{k½] fcgkj ljdkj dk i=kad&881] fnukad&08-03-16 dh Nk;kizfr layXu djrs gq, mYys[k fd;k gS fd bl i= esa Li’V mYys[k gS fd tc rd Bsdk dk;Z vko¡fVr ugha gks tkrk gSA rcrd fufonknkrkvksa ls yscj ykbZlsal ek¡xuk Hkh voS/k gSA mudk dguk gS fd mDr i= ds vkyksd esa yscj ykbZlsal ds vHkko

¶56

Patna High Court CWJC No.11952 of 2019 dt.01-08-2019 8/10

¶57

esa fufonk vLohd`r ugha dh tk ldrh gSA Je lalk/ku foHkkx dk i=kad&881] fnukad&08-03-16 dh Nk;kizfr layXu dh tk jgh gSA

¶58

3½ Signature with Seal%& dqN fufonk izi=ksa ij Signature ds lkFk Seal ugha jgus ds dkj.k ftyk ifjogu lfefr }kjk fufonk vLohd`r dj fn;k x;kA D;ksafd fufonk izi=ksa ij flQZ Signature Fkk Seal ugha A fufonknkrkvksa dk dguk gS fd “Seal” dh vfuok;Zrk flQZ fdlh QeZ ;k dEiuh ds fy, gSaA O;fDrxr fufonknkrkvksa ds fy, ugha gSA

¶59

vr,o vuqjks/k gS fd mDr fcUnqvksa ij Li’V fn”kk&funsZ”k fuxZr djus dh djus dh d`ik dh tk;A

¶60

The District Manager happens to be the Secretary of District Transport Committee.

¶61

In the aforementioned background of the facts when this court considers the impugned decision of the District Transport Committee rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner, this court would have no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that in fact what has been stated in the letter of the Labour Resources Department, Government of Bihar as back as on 08.03.2016 (Annexure ‘4’) has not at all been paid heed to by the District Transport Committee. If the Committee has come out with a condition in the tender

¶62

Patna High Court CWJC No.11952 of 2019 dt.01-08-2019 9/10

¶63

document which is not in accordance with law, they cannot insist the tenderers to comply with the same. At this stage, the court would also take note of section 12 of the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1972. A bare reading of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act of 1972 would show that it imposes a condition upon the contractor to obtain a contract labour licence before undertaking or executing any work through a contract labour. If sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act of 1972 is read along with the communication of the Labour Resources Department, it would be crystal clear that a contractor who gets a work from any works department has to obtain the contract labour licence immediately after the work is awarded to him.

¶64

In the present case, the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner is, therefore, not only illegal rather it is a totally arbitrary decision on the part of the respondents inasmuch as they have themselves failed to take note of the guidelines of the Labour Resources Department, Government of Bihar.

¶65

In result, the writ application is allowed. The

¶66

Patna High Court CWJC No.11952 of 2019 dt.01-08-2019 10/10

¶67

decision of the District Transport Committee in it’s meeting held on 15.01.2019 in so far as it relates to the petitioner and by which the technical bid of the petitioner has been rejected is hereby quashed. The District Transport Committee, Samastipur is directed to consider the tender of the petitioner afresh and take a decision thereon before opening of the financial bid.

¶68

The writ application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶69

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

¶70

Rajeev/-

¶71

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE	05.08.2019
Uploading Date
Transmission Date

Paramhans Ray v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paramhans Ray v. The State of Bihar

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 Mahavir Traders through its Proprietor Ranvijay Singh @ Dinesh Singh, Vs The State of Bihar

Ashutosh Kumar Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Md. Haroon @ Md. Haroon Ramzan Ali Vs North Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Shiv Shankar Ram Vs The Secretary

Birendra Kumar Singh, Vs The State Of Secretary

M/s Surendra Prasad and Co. Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.