Dismissed¶27

Sunil Kumar Gupta v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC15 Apr 2024CWJC/5893/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

tender rejection; technical bid; NIT dated 25.11.2022; Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation; BSFC; certificate of personal immovable property; Rs. 25 lacs; SDO/CO; father's property; co-sharers; siblings; consent; self-acquired property; father's affidavit; one-third share; opportunity to cure defect; Vikrant Kumar Gupta CWJC No. 16897 of 2023; followed precedent; writ petition dismissed; Patna High Court; CWJC No. 5893 of 2024; 15-04-2024; K. Vinod Chandran CJ; Harish Kumar J

What did the court decide?

The objection against the petitioner went to the root of the matter: he produced his father's property, which had co-sharers by way of his siblings, and no consent was produced from the father or the siblings; hence the absence of a certificate of 'personal' immovable property justified rejection of his technical bid. ¶21

Sunil Kumar Gupta Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid was valid, the objection being non-production of the required certificate of a personal immovable property worth not less than Rs. 25 lacs issued by a competent authority not below the rank of SDO/CO. +2 more

¶19

Court's answer

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Following its earlier judgment in Vikrant Kumar Gupta (CWJC No. 16897 of 2023), where in similar circumstances the Court held the rejection of a tender for not producing a certificate of personal immovable property valid, the Court dismissed the present writ petition.

¶22

Key takeaways

The very purpose of requiring a certificate of personal immovable property is to enable recovery proceedings if any defect is occasioned in the work awarded.ratio¶22
The father's affidavit proclaiming that the property is self-acquired and that the petitioner, his eldest son, has a one-third share does not satisfy the condition of personal immovable property, since a one-third share over the father's self-acquired property does not crystallise while the father is alive.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ and Harish Kumar, J; oral judgment per the Chief Justice) dismissed a Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case (CWJC No. 5893 of 2024, decided 15-04-2024) challenging the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid under an NIT dated 25.11.2022 concerning the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation. The tender required a certificate of personal immovable property worth not less than Rs. 25 lacs issued by an authority not below the rank of SDO/CO. The petitioner had offered his father's property, which had co-sharers by way of his siblings, without consent from the father or siblings, and relied on the father's affidavit declaring the property self-acquired with a one-third share for the petitioner; the Court held such a share does not crystallise while the father is alive and does not satisfy the condition of 'personal' immovable property, the emphasis on which is crucial because the certificate secures recovery if defects occur in the work awarded. In similar circumstances the Court had earlier rejected the claim in Vikrant Kumar Gupta vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 16897 of 2023, and following that judgment it declined the plea for an opportunity to be considered and dismissed the writ petition.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5893 of 2024

¶2

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

¶3

Sunil Kumar Gupta, Son of Shri Ramji Prasad Gupta, Resident Of Village - Shilanath Dullipatti, Ward No 04, PO - Dullipatti PS- Jay Nagar DistrictMadhubani.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The District Magistrate, Darbhanga.

¶8

The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Khadya Bhawan, 4th Floor, Daroga Prasad Ray Path, Patna 800001 through the Managing Director, Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Khadya Bhawan, 4th Floor, Daroga Prasad Ray Path, Patna 800001.

¶10

The District Manager, Bihar State food and Civil Supplies Corporation (B.S.F.C), District- Darbhanga having office at Near DDC Office, Laheriasarai, Darbhanga.

¶11

Sh. Avinash Prasad Singh, S/o Late Kashi Prasad Singh, R/O VillageDekpura, P.O.- Moratalab, District- Nalanda.

¶12

Sh. Dhananjay Kumar, S/o Jagarnath Singh, R/o Mahua Singhrai, P.O. and P.S. Mahua, District- Vaishali.

¶13

... ... Respondent/s

¶14

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mrs.Namrata Mishra, Advocate Ms. Archana Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Prabhat, AC to SC-21 For the BSFC : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶15

Patna High Court CWJC No.5893 of 2024 dt.15-04-2024 2/4

¶16

Date : 15-04-2024

¶17

The petitioner is before this Court challenging the rejection of the petitioner in a technical bid. The NIT, which is produced along with the supplementary affidavit, as Annexure-P/7, is dated 25.11.2022. The technical bids were opened on 10.01.2023 and there were 12 applicants, all of whom had one or other objection against them. On 16.01.2023, though the financial bid was scheduled to be opened, this did not happen. The petitioner was under the impression that the entire tender is abandoned and a new tender would come. However, later all the applicants were called for a discussion in which Respondent No. 6 and Respondent No. 7 were selected.

¶18

It is the submission of the petitioner that Respondent No. 6 and Respondent No. 7 had made good their objections. The petitioner also should have been permitted to make good the objection against him.

¶19

We see that the objection against the petitioner goes to the root of the matter i.e. with respect to production of a certificate of a personal immovable property, worth not less than Rs. 25 lacs issued by the competent authority not less than the rank of SDO/CO. Admittedly, the petitioner produced

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.5893 of 2024 dt.15-04-2024 3/4

¶21

his father’s property which had co-sharers by way of his siblings also. No consent has been produced from the father or the siblings. In any event, in similar circumstances, we have held the rejection of a tender for not producing certificate of personal immovable property; with the emphasis on personal, is very crucial and the claim rejected in CWJC No. 16897 of 2023, titled as Vikrant Kumar Gupta

¶22

vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. We follow the aforesaid judgment and dismiss the writ petition. The very purpose of production of certificate of personal immovable property is for proceeding for recovery, if any, defect is occasioned in the work awarded.

¶23

The learned Counsel for the petitioner pleaded that the petitioner may also be given an opportunity to be considered. The petitioner has produced a document, which gave one-third right to the petitioner, which is said to be produced at Page-19 of the writ petition. This is only an affidavit of the father which proclaims that the property is self- acquired and his eldest son, the petitioner has 1/3^rd share in the land. This does not satisfy the condition of the personal immovable property since the 1/3^rd share over the selfacquired property of his father does not crystalize when the

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.5893 of 2024 dt.15-04-2024 4/4

¶25

father is alive.

¶26