Sanjay Kumar Jha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12925 of 2022 ====================================================== Sanjay Kumar Jha Son of Late Naresh Chandra Jha, Resident of Ward No. 14, Naya Nagar, P.S. Supaul, District Supaul, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Engineer In Chief, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Chief Engineer-2, Rural Works Department, Bihar, Patna. 4.

The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Circle, Madhepura, Bihar.

5.

The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Trivbeniganj, Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Kameshwar Prasad Gupta (GP-10) Mr. Virendra Kumar, AC to GP-10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) 31-10-2023 In the instant writ petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):- "(i) Quashing of the decision of the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee contained in Letter No. 959 dated 18.08.2022 whereby, the Technical Bid of the petitioner has been declared non responsive and thus disqualified for the reason that the Bid documents are not inconformity with the requirements of Clause 4.2(g) and 4.4 B (b) (i) of the Instructions to Bidders; and

2/4 (ii) Restraining the Respondents from finalizing the Tender process during the pendency of the present writ application without the leave of this Hon'ble Court."

02. The impugned order dated 18.08.2022 (Annexure2) reads as under:-

3/4

03. While evaluating the technical bid of the petitioner, the concerned committee/authority has rejected the same on the score that the petitioner failed to fulfill Clause 4.2(g) and Clause 4.4(B)(b)(i) of the Instructions to Bidders (ITB). It is only a conclusive and it is not supported by reasons to the extent that whether the petitioner has produced certain documents or not. If he has produced certain documents, to what extent it is not in compliance of the aforementioned provisions or Instructions to Bidders are not forthcoming. In other words, there is a total non-application of mind in rejecting the petitioner's technical bid.

04. Accordingly, the impugned order/letter No. 959 dated 18.08.2022 (Annexure-2) stands set aside. The matter is remanded to the concerned authority for a fresh evaluation of the petitioner's technical bid. The concerned committee/ authority is hereby directed to evaluate the petitioner's technical bid properly and assign the reasons as to what extent there is any defect insofar as compliance of Clause 4.2(g) and Clause4.4(B)(b)(i) of the Instructions of Bidders. In this regard, detailed speaking decision shall be taken by the concerned authority and communicate the same to the petitioner within a reasonable period of one month from the date of receipt of a

4/4 copy of this order.

05. The writ petition stands allowed.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J) (Arun Kumar Jha, J) Ashish/- Annu Kumar/- U