Sanjay Kumar Sah vs The State of Bihar and Others

The order impugned is dated 1 No vember 2002 on CWJC No. 11553 of 2002: Sanjay Kumar Sah v. The State of Bihar and Ors. As a consequence of an advertisement put in by the State of Bihar, Department of Welfare, the Appellant was also one of the persons who made a bid for receiving the tender. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the Appellant did not possess requisite qualifications nor satisfy the conditions so that his tender could be considered. Being aggrieved, the Appellant has filed this letters patent appeal.

There seems to be a basic misunderstanding with the Petitioner-Appellant on the grant of a contract in pursuance of an advertisement. The advertisement is only an invitation to make an offer. The person who makes an offer must possess the conditions which are essential for being considered, in the present case the Appellant was vying to bid for the tender. One of the essential conditions was that the Appellant must offer a no dues certificate both from the Income Tax Department and the Commercial Tax Department. It is accepted before the court that the Appellant did not have a turn over for the purpose of obtaining certificate as are referred in item No. 4 of the conditions of the contract. While the Appellant was offering his tender he was simultaneously applying for a no dues certificate from the Commercial Tax Department. In the circumstances, the Appellant was never a "dealer" within the meaning of definition u/s 2(e) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981.

Further, that the Appellant was expecting he would simultaneously apply and be considered for the tender as his application for registration as a dealer u/s 14 should be assumed to have been granted on the deeming clause. The Appellant was stretching a point too far. An application for registration is granted upon satisfaction of the prescribed authority. If granted, it is deemed as granted as on the date of the application. It can also be rejected. The deeming provision is not automatic. The Appellant clearly did not possess the conditions for even being considered for the contract.

Dismissed.