Titu Badwal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8170 of 2024 ====================================================== Titu Badwal son of Late Sohan Singh, Resident of Mohallah-Professors Colony, Milan Patty, Kishanganj, Police Station-Kishanganj (Muffasil), District-Kishanganj (Bihar).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Nirman Bhawan, Nehru Path, Patna. 2.

The Engineer in Chief cum Special Secretary cum Additional Commissioner, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Nirman Bhawan, Nehru Path, Patna.

3.

The Chief Engineer No. 2, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Nirman Bhawan, Nehru Path, Patna.

4.

The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Circle, Kishanganj. 5.

The Technical Secretary to the Engineer in Chief, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Nirman Bhawan, Nehru Path, Patna. 6.

The Project Director, M.M.G.S.Y., Government of Bihar, Nirman Bhawan, Nehru Path, Patna.

7.

The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division No. 2, Kishanganj at Kishanganj.

8.

Ashok Kumar (Bid ID 563468) son of Parasuram Singh, Resident of Samvedana Colony Road, Pakari, Ara at Ara.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Uma Shankar Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Vikash Kumar AC to AG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 15-05-2024 The petitioner is before us contending that the

2/4 Technical Evaluation Committee having once approved the bid of the petitioner cannot modify it; especially if the Technical Bid Committee is comprised of the very same members.

2. The brief facts as we noticed is that by Annexure-1 Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) the petitioner's bid is under Item No. 24:- MMGSY-NDBBRRP-634KISHANGANJA1 Pothiya islampur RCD road near donkpul Sethabari RCD road 1.791 293.682 27.497 321.179 A2 KTTG RCD Road Indarpur Darogaon 0.914 110.936 14.736 125.672 14.512 Kishanganj-2 A3 Dahelbari Primary School Baghalbari middle school-2 0.928 100.969 16.258 117.227 A4 Tipu chowk Purab Panasi 1.231 142.769 18.742 161.511 Total 4.864 648.356 77.233 725.589 14.512

3. The petitioner and two others had bid under the NIT for this item. Only two persons qualified and the petitioner was one of the persons who qualified. Later, the very same Technical Evaluation Committee reviewed the case of the petitioner and found that the documents were misleading and hence rejected the bid of the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits on instruction that it was based on a complaint received from the other bidders that the matter was taken up again and on verification it was found that the

3/4 petitioner had produced a forged document; specifically a bill.

5. We specifically queried learned Counsel for the petitioner as to whether any statement is made as to the document produced being genuine; in the writ petition. However, the learned Counsel had only this to submit that the very same Technical Bid Committee cannot modify its earlier order and if that is allowed then they would do whatever they wanted in the tenders floated by the Government.

6. We are not convinced that this is a situation which calls for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On complaint received, the very same Technical Bid Committee had considered the documents afresh and found that there was a fraudulent document produced. Annexure-4 clearly indicates that the petitioner had produced a bill/invoice issued by one M.M.Enterprises along with the documents submitted in two tenders; but showing different dates; i.e. one of 2014 and the other of 2017. The bill of 2017 was also dated 20.09.2017; after the G.S.T. regime had come into effect. But, the tax deduction shown in the bill was of VAT clearly indicating it to be one issued prior to 01.07.2017; the date of coming into force of G.S.T. On the principle that fraud vitiates everything which has not been

4/4 countered in the writ petition, we dismiss the writ petition in limine.

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) (Harish Kumar, J) ranjan/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date Transmission Date NA