SRMB Srijan Private Limited vs State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary And Ors

Heard Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned senior advocate for the petitioner/company and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chandram for the State. The counsel for the

Union of India has also rendered his assistance.

The petitioner/company has not been listed by the Schedule of Rate Committee (in short S.O.R Committee) constituted under the aegis of Road

Construction Department from which steel could be procured for construction work.

Prior to the S.O.R Committee listing of companies dealing in steel, the specific requirement under the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Steel was

that primacy has to be given to primary producers of steel and not secondary producers who re-rolled the steel billets.

It is the case of the petitioner/company that it is the primary producer of steel and that the aforenoted classification of steel companies by the Ministry

of Steel has now been withdrawn and the only specification now for procuring steel from any such company is that it should conform to the B.I.S

standard. The product of the petitioner/company conforms to B.I.S standard.

For reasons which are inexplicable to the petitioner/company, the list which has been prepared by the State Level Schedule of Rate Committee,

Government of Bihar through its convener does not include the name of the farm of the petitioner.

In the first counter affidavit, it has been submitted that because of the petitioner/company not being found to be a primary producer of steel which

according to the guidelines of the Ministry of Steel is an important factor to be taken into account for procuring steel from such companies, the name

of the petitioner/company was not included in such list.

Mr. Shahi, learned senior advocate for the petitioner/company submits that this reasoning is fallacious as the classification by the Ministry of Steel

stands withdrawn.

In the second counter affidavit, another reason has been given viz. that the petitioner/company did not supply relevant information for it to be

considered as a viable company from which steel could be procured for any construction work under the Road Construction Department.

This also, it has been argued does not appear to be correct as no reason has been assigned for not listing the petitioner’s firm even though in the

past the petitioner/company had been chosen for procuring steel by various government and non- government companies and the quality of steel

furnished/supplied by the petitioner/company has not been found wanting in any respect.

As noted above, it has been reiterated that the product of the petitioner/company conforms to the B.I.S standard.

The petitioner/company appears to have been overlooked for reasons which are not convincing. This Court therefore provides that in case an

authorized representative of the petitioner/company represents before the Schedule of Rate Committee (S.O.R Committee) within a period of three

weeks, annexing a copy of this order, the grounds raised therein shall be considered for the purposes of taking a fresh decision for including the

petitioner in such list of companies from which steel could be procured in any government construction. A reasoned decision would be required to be

given by the Committee and such decision shall be communicated to the petitioner/ company. If the claim of the petitioner/company is found to be

tenable, necessary decisions in that regard also would be required to be taken by the Committee. This exercise must be completed within a period of

eight weeks of the receipt of such representation.

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed off.