Sanjay Singh vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.

I.A. No. 598/13

The instant interlocutory application has been preferred by the respondent no. 6 for vacation of the interim order dated 13th December, 2012 passed in the instant writ application restraining him from executing the work in pursuance of the contract awarded in his favour vide Annexure-5 to the writ application dated 26th October, 2012. The work order was also issued pursuant thereto vide Annexure-IA-1 to the instant I.A. dated 4th December, 2012. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner has approached this court as he was not allotted the work and the interim order was passed restraining the respondent no. 6 from executing the work which was already allotted to him.

It is submitted on behalf of the private respondent that under clause 19 of the terms and conditions of the tender, the petitioner being the PDS licencee, could not participate in the said tender which was initiated for awarding the work for transportation of foodgrains from FCI Godowns to the doorstep of the Public Distribution Shops. It is submitted that even the State respondent at paragraph-8 of their counter affidavit, have also taken the same stand that the petitioner was disqualified in terms of clause-19 of the said tender notice itself. Counsel for the private respondent further submits that as per clause-2 of the tender notice (Annexure-4), a character certificate issued not more than six months before the date of the tender by the competent Superintendent of Police or Deputy Superintendent of Police on the specific question whether the tenderer is a convicted person or is involved in a criminal case relating to any offence for supply of foodgrains is pending against him or whether the tenderer has been blacklisted, has to be produced. Counsel for the respondent no. 6 submits that the character certificate has been issued in his favour and was submitted before the respondent-State authorities as none of these conditions apply to the respondent no. 6.

Counsel for the petitioner however submits that though the rates quoted by the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 were the same, but the work was allotted to the respondent no. 6 and not to the petitioner, though there was criminal case pending against the respondent no. 6 vide Annexure-6 to the writ application being Baghmara (Mahuda) P.S. Case No. 71/12 registered under Sections 341, 323, 504, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

However, perusal of the FIR indicates that this does not relate to any defalcation or misappropriation of Government foodgrains, but are in relation to other offences. It further appears from the averments made in the counter affidavit of the respondent-State that the petitioner''s PDS licence was valid till December 2012 and thus, he was ineligible from participating in the tender, as per clause-19 of the said tender. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the licence was surrendered in September 2011 itself. However, from the statements made in the counter affidavit, it is clear that it was valid till December 2012 and had not been revoked earlier.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and having gone through the materials brought on record, it is apparent that the petitioner was disqualified from participating in the said tender being a PDS licencee at the time he participated in the tender in the teeth of the clause-19 of the said tender. It further appears that the petitioner has not been able to show that the character certificate issued in favour of the respondent no. 6 was in teeth of clause-2 of the tender, as the respondent no. 6 does not appear to have been convicted for any criminal offence or connected with any offence relating to misappropriation of Government foodgrains or was blacklisted.

In fact, on finding the rate quoted by the respondent no. 6 to be lowest and fulfilling other conditions as well, contract was executed in his favour vide Annexure-5 and the work order was also issued vide Annexure-IA-1 to the instant I.A. preferred on behalf of the respondent no. 6. In these circumstances, the petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference in the writ petition and the impugned order awarding contract and the work order to the respondent no. 6, does not appear to be vitiated in law. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the interim order stands vacated. I.A. also stands disposed of.