M/s Mahavir Construction v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC13 Feb 2025CWJC/6670/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tender allotment challenge; renovation of Pokhma Payne Irrigation Scheme; Technical Bid Evaluation Committee 09.02.2024; technically unresponsive bid; Clause-2.1 of Clause-22 of notice inviting tender; dozer equipment documents; complaint and counter-complaint; internal vigilance inquiry; three-member committee; 98% work completed; non-interference in writ petition; corrective measures for future contracts; Minor Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar; M/s Hariom Services; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the writ petition was disposed of without interfering with the allotment, with only an observation that the vigilance report, if tabled before the concerned authority, must be taken into account and corrective measures adopted for future contracts. ¶¶39

M/s Mahavir Construction Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the allotment of the work of renovation of the Pokhma Payne Irrigation Scheme to respondent no.7 (M/s Hariom Services), in a tender process in which the petitioner's bid was found technically unresponsive and which was allegedly speeded up to favour respondent no.7, calls for interference by the Court. +1 more

¶¶27

Court's answer

In case the vigilance report is tabled before the concerned authority, it must be taken into account and necessary corrective measures be adopted for future contracts.

¶¶37

Ratio / Principle

The Court found, from the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the State and its confirmation by the Chief Engineer, that 98% of the work had already been completed.

¶¶28

Key takeaways

Considering that 98% of the work had already been finished, the Court did not wish to interfere or pass any order in the writ petition.ratio¶¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court, CWJC No.6670 of 2024 (decided 13-02-2025, Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ; Partha Sarthy, J): The petitioner construction firm challenged the respondents' allotment of the work of renovation of the Pokhma Payne Irrigation Scheme to respondent no.7 (M/s Hariom Services). The petitioner contended that although the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee had on 09.02.2024 found its bid technically unresponsive — the dozer equipment documents not being in consonance with Clause-2.1 of Clause-22 of the notice inviting tender — its complaint against respondent no.7's deficient tender was brushed aside and the process was speeded up to favour respondent no.7. The petitioner's complaint was sent to an internal vigilance inquiry before a three-member committee constituted to examine the alleged non-observance of tender rules; counsel informed the Court that the inquiry had ended and the report perhaps indicates necessary safeguards in awarding the contract were not followed. Holding that 98% of the work had already been completed (as stated in the State's supplementary affidavit and confirmed by the Chief Engineer), the Court declined to interfere and disposed of the writ petition, observing that if the vigilance report is tabled before the concerned authority it must be taken into account and necessary corrective measures adopted for future contracts.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6670 of 2024

¶2

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

¶3

M/s Mahavir Construction having its Registered Office at Chauthiya, Taripar, Maner Telpa, Bikram, Patna, through its Proprietor, Amit Kumar, Male, aged about 40 years, S/o Siyaram Singh, resident of Maner Telpa, P.S. Bikram, District Patna.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Minor Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Engineer in Chief, Minor Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Chief Engineer, Minor Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The Superintending Engineer cum Technical Secretary, Minor Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶10

The Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Gaya, Bihar.

¶11

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Jehanabad, District Jehanabad, Bihar.

¶12

M/s. Hariom Services, Lakhibagh, Manpur, P.S. Muffasil, District Gaya, Bihar.

¶13

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prabhat Ranjan, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Advocate General Mr. Vikash Kumar, Adv.

¶14

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶15

Date : 13-02-2025

¶16

Heard Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, the learned

¶17

Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Vikash Kumar, the

¶18

learned Advocate for the State.

¶19

The petitioner came up before this Court

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.6670 of 2024 dt.13-02-2025 2/4

¶21

aggrieved by the decision of the respondents in allotting the work concerned to respondent no. 7/M/s Hariom Services, Lakhibag, Manpur, P.S. Muffasil, District – Gaya.

¶22

The work related to renovation of Pokhma

¶23

Payne Irrigation Scheme.

¶24

The contention of the petitioner is that the complaint made against the petitioner by respondent no. 7 regarding his not fulfilling the technical conditions, was accepted whereas the complaint lodged by the petitioner against respondent no. 7 was brushed aside lightly. It was alleged that the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee on 09.02.2024 had found the petitioner’s bid to be technically unresponsive. It was only thereafter complaints and counter complaints were made by the parties and by others as well. It was ultimately found that the petitioner’s bid did not qualify the tender conditions especially with respect to the documents concerning equipments relating to dozer machines as the documents

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.6670 of 2024 dt.13-02-2025 3/4

¶26

furnished were not found to be in consonance with the requirement of Clause- 2.1 of Clause -22 of the notice inviting tender.

¶27

The grievance of the petitioner is that the whole process was speeded up for helping and allotting work to respondent no. 7, who too had offered deficient tender papers.

¶28

Nonetheless, we have found from the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the State that 98% of the work has already been completed, which statement has been made after its confirmation by the Chief Engineer of the project.

¶29

The complaint of the petitioner was but sent for an internal vigilance inquiry and a three member committee appears to have been constituted to look into

¶30

the allegation against the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee and the other authorities of the State, in not observing the rules of tender and thus not acting fairly in concluding contract with private parties, to the

¶31

Patna High Court CWJC No.6670 of 2024 dt.13-02-2025 4/4

¶32

disadvantage of many including the petitioner.

¶33

Mr. Prabhat Ranjan has also informed this

¶34

Court that the inquiry has ended and the report perhaps indicates that necessary safeguards while awarding contract was not followed by the authorities.

¶35

However, considering the fact that 98% of work has already been finished by now, we do not wish to interfere or pass any order in this writ petition, except for

¶36

observing that in case the vigilance report is tabled before

¶37

the concerned authority, it must be taken into account and necessary corrective measures be adopted for future

¶38

contracts.

¶39