Braj Bihari vs State Of Bihar And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The Engineer-in-Chief Rural Works Department Bihar on 28.11.2019 invited tender on behalf

of the Govt. of Bihar through E-procurement online system, (SBD based) from bonafide approved and eligible contractors registered with the

specified Department for the MMGSY works including maintenance for 5 years after construction of work. The petitioner has submitted his bid in

respect of the various tenders identified by an identification number.

Altogether seven tender bids were submitted by the petitioner. The tender bids in respect of tender I.D. No 84461, 84468, 84471 and 84492 have been

declared disqualified.

The short submission of the petitioner counsel is that the disqualification has been taken in the decision of the technical bid Committee dated

05.03.2020 by specifying a reason that the Advocate Welfare Stamp fee (Rs 25) was not affixed in the affidavit submitted in respect of the tender

I.Ds, and as such, this deficiency disqualified the petitioner’s bid. He further submits that such rejection is not sustainable. He refers to a

communication of the Rural Works Department dated 31.01.2020 to submit, that as per the same, the Department on 31.01.2020 took a decision that

hereinafter the requirement of affixing Advocate Welfare Stamp (Rs 25) on the affidavit would be specified in the standard bidding document for the

tenderers. Relying on this communication, he submits that since the petitioner’s tender was submitted in response to the advertisement issued prior

to 31.01.2020 the requirement of affixing Advocate Welfare Stamp of Twenty Five Rupees on the affidavit could not be enforced, and as such, non

supply of Advocate Welfare Stamp for Twenty Five Rupees cannot be treated as disqualification.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. The learned State counsel has drawn the attention of the Court towards Annexure-D i.e. the

Gazette notification dated 25.2.2019 , whereby, Bihar Advocates’ Welfare Fund Amendment Act was notified. The same amended the amount of

the Advocate Welfare fund stamp to be “Twenty Five Rupees†in place of “Fifteen Rupeesâ€. It is his submission that from the date of the

said notification amended stamp fee Rs 25/- was a standard requirement enforceable by law and, therefore, the writ petitioner cannot be heard to say

that till such time a separate notification was issued by the Department to supply Advocate Welfare Stamp of Twenty Five Rupees, he cannot be put

to such requirement.

This Court is in agreement with the submissions advanced by the State Counsel. Once the amount of Advocate Welfare Fund Stamp has been

amended by an Act and duly notified in the Gazette on 25.02.2019, the requirement assumes the force of law and it is required to be complied with.

Non supply of Advocate Welfare Stamp of Twenty Five Rupees on the affidavit submitted by the petitioner can therefore be considered to be a

disqualification as the affidavit would be suffering with a defect to the extent that the amount of the Advocate Welfare Stamp affixed on the affidavit

is insufficient. From the pleadings on record, it is further evident that on the similar grounds at least two other bidders bid has been disqualified. The

respondents were enforcing this requirement uniformly and rightly so, in view of the Gazette notification.

The further submission of the petitioner’s counsel is that from paragraph No 17 of the counter affidavit filed by the State , it is evident that at least

three tender IDs are still pending and for which the technical bid has not been opened, namely, Tender ID No 84463, 84469 and 84470. He submits

that he should be given an opportunity to make good the defect by supplying the amount of Advocate Welfare Stamp fee which is deficient in the

affidavit submitted in respect of these tenderers. The petitioner would be at liberty to supply the deficient amount of Advocate Welfare Stamp in

respect of the three tenderers along with a request to accept the same, and the Authority would consider such request of the petitioner, in accordance

with law.

The application stands disposed of.