Patna High CourtCWJC/17698/2017dismissed

Deepak Singh v. The Punjab National Bank Through Its Chairman And ORS

2025-07-07Justice Smt. G. Anupama Chakravarthy5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17698 of 2017 ====================================================== Deepak Singh S/o late Harihar Singh R/o Village-Hasanpur, P.O.Mahisana, P.S.- Lakhisarai Sadar, District- Lakhisarai. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The Punjab National Bank Through Its Chairman and Ors 2.

The Chief Manager, Divisional Officer Punjab National Bank, Biharsharif, P.S. Town, District Naland 3.

The Divisional Manager, Divisional officer, P.N.B, Biharsharif Ramchandrapur, P.S. Town, District N 4.

The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Lakhisarai, P.S. Town, DistrictLakhisarai. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rakesh Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Chandan Kumar Kashyap, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Kumar Priya Ranjan, Adv.

Mr.Rajan Ghoshrawe, (Adv for PNB) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 07-07-2025

1. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

(i) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider this after of the petitioner which was submitted in connection with Tender Notification made in the Daily News paper Dainik Jagran in terms of the fact that petitioner had offered lowest rate and highest facilities by fulfilling act

2/5 requirement as published in tender notification.

(ii) To hold and declare that the & act & process adopted by the respondent Bank is contrary to the terms as contemplated in the law arising out of Art.14 of Constitution of India & Contract Act. According the pleased to canceal the settlement held between Respondent bank and Respondent No. 4 hereof.

(iii) To direct the respondent to accept the offer of the petitioner which was submitted through the consignment No.

EF287116773IN received on 21.07.2017 at the office of Respondent No. 2.

(iv) To grant any other reliefs for which petitioner is entitled to have in connection with the aforesaid reliefs.

2. The brief facts, as culled out from the Writ petition, is that the petitioner made an application pursuant to a tender notification published in daily newspaper Dainik Jagaran, edition dated 15.06.2017 wherein tenders were invited from suitable candidates who could set up a constituted campus

3/5 and premises measuring between 1200 sq. ft. to 1600 sq. ft. As per the tender documents submitted by the petitioner, he stated that he has carpet are of 1448 sq. ft. including a parking area of 1114 sq. ft. situated at Lal Pahari, Ward No. 30, Kawaiya Police Station, Lakhisarai. The petitioner approached to the Divisional Officer on 07.08.2017, where he was informed by one of the officers of the Bank, namely Jitendra Kumar Singh, that the consignment sent by the petitioner was received on 26.07.2017 whereas Post Office informed that it had been delivered on 21.07.2017. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that he was not considered and that there had been a settlement between the respondent No. 4 and third parties. The petitioner also made a representation before Divisional Manager of Punjab National bank, Biharsharif, enclosing all relevant documents. However, the bank adopted a pick-andchoose method and did not consider the application of the petitioner, for which the present Writ petition has been filed.

4/5

3. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the respondent, Punjab National Bank, denying all the material allegations made in the Writ petition. The counter affidavit disclose that the advertisement was published in newspaper Danik Jagaran on 09.07.2017, inviting tenders from interested parties. Altogether 15 tenders were received by the respondent-Bank, out of which one tender was found to be invalid. However, 14 tenders, including that of the petitioner, were duly considered by the authorities. As per the guidelines contained in GSAD Circular No. 07/2016, dated 11.08.2017, a survey team was constituted by the competent authority and sent to inspect the sites for which valid tenders were received, including the site proposed by the petitioner. The Survey Committee submitted its report to the Building Committee of Biharsharif Circle of the respondent-Bank. As per the report, three proposals were shortlisted as technically suitable for the respondent-Bank, whereas the site of the petitioner was found technically unsuitable by the Building Committee. Thereafter, the financial offers

5/5 of only those applicants who were shortlisted were taken into consideration, and the tender was given to the applicant who quoted the lowest rate.

4. Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Learned counsel for the respondents.

5. On perusal of the record, the counter affidavit clearly discloses that the petitioner's land was not as per the norms, and the Survey Committee had considered only three tenders out of the fourteen, and the lowest price among the three was finalized by the Bank. Therefore, this Court finds no error or irregularity in the order passed by the respondent-Bank.

6. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ petitions stands disposed of as it deviod of merits. (G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J) AMANDEEP/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 09.07.2025.

Transmission Date