MAA SHAKTI ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for Respondents 2 and 3, learned counsel for Respondent no. 4, and learned Standing Counsel no. 2. This writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the letter no. 1848 dated 28.9.2001 (Annexure -1), issued by the respondent -corporation in favour of respondent no. 4, calling him upon to supply specific number of trailers with accessories on the terms and conditions mentioned therein, and for the further relief that the respondent -corporation may be directed by a writ of mandamus to issue similar work order in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) THE respondent -corporation have issued tender notice for supply of trailers with accessories. Five persons had submitted tenders, and the rates submitted by them is to be found in the summary sheet (annexure -2) maintained in the office of the respondent -corporation. According to the petitioner, it appears from a plain reading of the same that rates quoted by the petitioner were lower than the rates quoted by respondent no. 4 notwithstanding which respondent no. 4 has been favoured with the order vide annexure -1. Learned counsel further complains that one of the conditions of tender was that the supply shall have to be completed within two weeks from the date of issuance of supply order which condition has been modified by the work order (annexure -1) and a period of three weeks has been granted to respondent no. 4 to supply the goods. He further submits that the petitioner is duly registered SSI unit in the registers of Bihar Government and is, therefore, not required to deposit earnest money in response to such tender notice as per the rules framed by the State Government in this behalf.

(3.) THREE different learned counsel appearing on behalf of three different sets of respondents submit in one voice that the petitioner did not fulfil the terms and conditions of the tender notice (annexure -3) and was, therefore, excluded from consideration. According to the respondents, the petitioner did not furnish the proof of registration of manufacture, as a SSI unit holding Q mark of the Government of Bihar, nor up -to -date income tax clearance and sales tax clearance certificate. It is further submitted that the petitioner did not deposit the requisite earnest money of 1.5 lakh along with the tender papers. It has lastly been submitted that the respondent -corporation has not a corporate body been impleaded as party -respondent.