SCI INDIA LIMITED Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a registered company engaged in the business of manufacturing/sacheting and supply of country liquor, has preferred the present writ application against the order dated 26th November, 2012 passed by the Secretary, Department of Registration, Excise & Prohibition by which exclusive privilege for manufacture and supply of country liquor in sachets has been made in favour of 17 persons for the period 1st December, 2012 to 31st March, 2014. Pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tender (hereinafter referred to as "the NIT") dated 25th October, 2012 for award of grant of exclusive privilege to manufacture and supply country liquor in sachets, the petitioner along with others had applied and upon going through the due process, by order dated 26th November, 2012, 17 persons were granted the exclusive privilege for manufacture and supply of country liquor in sachets covering the whole State of Bihar. The petitioner did not figure in the list of persons finally selected for grant of such privilege and thus approached this Court in the present writ petition challenging the order dated 26th November, 2012.

(2.) Mr. Gautam Kejriwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order, inter alia, on the grounds that as per the terms of the NIT, the persons who have finally made into the select list had not fulfilled various prerequisites for being considered, as they had not fully complied with the terms and conditions of the NIT dated 25th October, 2012 read with its corrigendum dated 29th October 2012. By way of example, he has referred to the case of M/s. M.J. & Sons Distillery and Beverages and M/s. Riga Sugar Company which, according to him, were not fit for consideration by the authorities while deciding on their bids. With regard to M/s. M.J. & Sons Distillery and Beverages it is alleged that as per Clause 2(iv) of the NIT no certificate from the Registrar of Companies that the company was not into liquidation has been filed and further, that initially on this ground the technical bid was rejected but later on the financial bid was considered and the firm even found place in the list of those ultimately selected. With regard to M/s. Riga Sugar Company, it is submitted that as per the financial bid the rate which has been shown by the authorities with regard to their offer relating to 200 ml. of sachet is false inasmuch as though it was mentioned Rs. 2.36, but there was a further addition of 9 Paise which was mentioned as Hologram charges and thus if the two are added it would come to Rs. 2.45, which is much higher than the bid of the petitioner company. Learned counsel in support of his contentions has relied upon on the decisions of this Court rendered in the case of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Raj Kumar Jha, 2012 2 PLJR 783, the relevant being at paragraphs 9 and 10 and in the case of Braj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1998 3 PLJR 34, the relevant being at para 21.

(3.) Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Additional Advocate General has appeared for the State in opposition to the writ petition. He has submitted that the petitioner cannot claim any fundamental right with regard to carrying out business/trade in liquor and the Court ought not to be too technical or minutely scrutinize each and every detail of the tender process; and in the instant case there are no infirmities of such a nature so as to warrant interference and setting of the whole process to naught.