Jai Mata Di Horticulture vs The Bihar Police Building Constructions Corporation & Ors.

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA)

Heard Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prasoon Sinha, learned senior counsel for Bihar Police Building Constructions Corporation (hereinafter referred as "Corporation") and Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned senior counsel for the Respondent No. 10.

The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Corporation had floated NIT dated 02.09.2025 for the work of comprehensive maintenance of entire external area, including Horticulture, Plantation, Gardening, necessary Pest Control, Grass area, Parking areas, Celebration Ground, Parade Ground, Pond, all open spaces and all rent areas (excluding buildings) etc. of Bihar Police Academy, Rajgir, Nalanda, Bihar for a period five years.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and others had participated in the NIT in question. The proceeding of the meeting of the Technical Evaluation Committee was held on 27.09.2025. During the said proceeding, it was found that the Respondent No. 10 i.e. Raj Informatics Constructions' technical bid was non-responsive as its technical bid was not in accordance with Section-V (From-G) of the quotation invitation form, the required certificate (OHSAS) was not enclosed and it did not have sufficient experience of minimum similar work required for the technical bid. He further submits that the remaining two bidders i.e. C M Marketing and Research Pvt. Ltd. and this petitioner i.e. Jai Mata Di Horticulture fulfilled the eligibility criteria for the technical bid. Hence, their technical bids were found responsive. He further submits that subsequent to the Tender Technical Evaluation Committee held on 27.09.2025, where the petitioner firm was found responsive, it appears that Monitoring Committee meeting convened on 26.11.2025 in respect of NIT E-Quotation, and the Raj Informatics Construction (Respondent No. 10) was declared L1, even when he was found non-responsive in technical bid. It is admitted fact that the Respondent No. 10 had not enclosed the required certificate (OHSAS) while submitting the tender. Apart from the aforesaid, the Respondent No. 10 did not have sufficient experience of minimum similar work required for the technical bid and still he was declared L1 and petitioner was declared L2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Technical Evaluation Committee while considering the technical bid of Respondent No. 10 found it to be non-responsive and the reason mentioned in the proceeding is material defect which cannot be cured later on. It appears from the aforesaid that the actions of the respondents are arbitrary, illegal and unfair and having been undertaken to favour the Respondent No. 10 and to deprive the petitioner from its legal right.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Sub clause (h) of Clause 1.2 of the NIT of the bid document which is reproduced hereinbelow:-

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is an admitted position that the Respondent No. 10 was debarred from 17.10.2022 to 17.12.2024. So as per the Sub- Clause (h) of the Clause 1.2 of the NIT, the Respondent No. 10 has not fulfilled the conditions as stipulated in the aforesaid clause of the NIT and the respondent authority ignoring the aforesaid, has granted the bid in question to the Respondent No. 10.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is an admitted position that the Respondent No. 10's contract was terminated by East Central Railway in connection with distribution of bed rolls to the passengers of AC coaches in train and he was debarred for two years vide letter dated 17.10.2022. The aforesaid aspect had been considered by the Tender Evaluation Committee in its meeting dated 17.11.2025, wherein it was held that the Respondent No. 10 was debarred from 17.10.2022 to 17.12.2024, and he was not debarred on the last date of submission of the bid i.e. 25.09.2025, accordingly his bid was considered valid. He further submits that in terms of NIT which clearly stipulates that the applicant should not have been blacklisted/ debarred by any Govt./ Semi Govt./ PSU undertaking during the last five years, meaning thereby that if any person is debarred from 25.09.2020, he will not be qualified to participate in the tender and his bid automatically gets disqualified in terms of Sub Clause (h) of Clause 1.2 of the NIT. It is also an admitted position that the Respondent No. 10 was debarred from 17.10.2022 to 17.12.2024 and the same makes him disentitle to participate in the present tender process. But the Tender Evaluation Committee ignoring the aforesaid had declared the technical bid of the Respondent No. 10 responsive and on that basis the Respondent No. 10 has been given the tender in question. He further submits that apart from the aforesaid, the Respondent No. 10 has challenged the debarment order in CWJC No. 16768 of 2022 which was disposed of on 06.12.2022 and the learned Court has not quashed the debarment order dated 17.10.2022.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment dated 06.01.2026 in the case of Golden Food Products India Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in [2026] 2 SCR as well as 47 2026 INSC 22 of which relevant paragraph is quoted hereinbelow:-

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the aforesaid, it is an admitted position that the Respondent No. 10 was not qualified to participate in the bid in question in terms of Sub Clause (h) of Clause 1.2 of the NIT.

Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 10 has taken a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition and submits that the writ petitioner did not choose to file any objection with respect to the decision dated 29.09.2025 of the Tender Evaluation Committee in between 29.09.2025 to 17.11.2025 and even on the date and time when the financial bids were being opened or before participating in opening of the financial bid but subsequently chose to withdraw their EMD earnest money deposited without any protest. He further submits that the Tender Evaluation Committee has rightly declared the Respondent No. 10 as L-1 and accordingly, the Respondent No. 3 vide letter no. 4595 dated 08.12.2025 addressed to the Respondent No. 8 by which the work order has been issued in favour of the Respondent No. 10 and requested to execute the agreement. And after considering the facts and circumstances of the documents produced by the Respondent No. 10, the Tender Evaluation Committee after going through the document and objections made by the parties concerned respectively, the committee took decision to execute the agreement and accordingly, issued the work order dated 08.12.2025. Thereafter, an agreement was executed on 22.04.2026 between Bihar Police Academy Rajgir and Respondent No. 10. After executing the agreement and getting the work order the Respondent No. 10 started the work.

Learned senior counsel for the Respondent No. 10 further submits that apart from the aforesaid, as per the Clause 1.3.14 of the NIT, the Corporation has got the right to accept or reject any or all proposals without assigning any reasons.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation submits that the committee after due consideration has rightly selected the Respondent No. 10 as he has all types of work experience as required by the NIT.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record, it is an admitted fact that the Respondent No. 10 was debarred for two years vide order dated 17.10.2022 to 17.12.2024 and as per the Sub Clause (h) of the Clause 1.2 of the NIT the applicant must not have been blacklisted or debarred by any Govt./ Semi Govt./ PSU undertaking during the last five years. It is an admitted fact that the Respondent No. 10 was debarred by the East Central Railway in connection with distribution of bed rolls to the passengers of AC coaches in train and he was debarred for two years and the last date of submission of the bid is 25.09.2025. And as per the Sub Clause (h) of the Clause 1.2 of the NIT, the Respondent No. 10 was not qualified to participate in the tender. As per the aforesaid clause which clearly stipulates that the applicant/Respondent No. 10 should not have been blacklisted/ debarred by any Govt./ Semi Govt./ PSU undertaking during the last five years meaning thereby even in the present tender, he is not qualified and automatically he was disqualified vide Sub Clause (h) of the Clause 1.2 of the NIT.

It appears from the aforesaid that the Respondent No. 10 was not eligible in terms of Sub Clause (h) of the Clause 1.2 of the NIT.

Upon perusal of the records, it appears that vide order dated 03.02.2026, this Court had issued notice upon the private respondent no. 10 and directed the State to file a counter affidavit in the matter. Upon perusal of office notes dated 16.03.2026, it is evident that notices had been issued to Private Respondent No. 10 and that the said respondent had appeared through Vakalatnama. Further, it is evident that during the pendency of the present writ application the agreement dated 22.04.2026 came to be executed. In view thereof, and having considered Sub-Clause (h) of the Clause 1.2 of NIT, this Court is left with no option but to quash the decision of the tender committee and the consequent actions pursuant to the NIT in question.

In view of the aforesaid developments and circumstances of the case, the technical bid decision dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure-P8), the financial bid decision dated 26.11.2025 (Annexure-P3), the consequent work order dated 08.12.2025 (Annexure-P4) and the executed agreement dated 22.04.2026 (Annexure-P9) are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent Corporation for taking a fresh decision with respect to work in question, in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.