GOPAL BHAGWAN DAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, petitioner is aggrieved by the acceptance of bid of Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. (respondent No. 5) and later award of contract for supply of Mill Water Mark Cream Wove White Printing Papers and White Cover Paper, although they had not complied with the mandatory requirement of the condition with respect to deposit of earnest money, whereas the petitioner complied all the conditions including deposit of earnest money within time, and their price bid was lower than the respondent No. 5 as claimed.

(2.) In short, the case of the petitioner is that respondent-Bihar State Text Book Corporation, which is an instrumentality of the State Government and State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution issued advertisement in February, 2004 in daily newspaper inviting sealed cover tender for supply of Mill Water Mark Cream Wove White Printing Paper vide Annexure-1. Petitioner, which is a partnership firm being interested approached the authority and obtained the tender form by paying a fee of Rs. 1,000/- and Submitted it in two different sealed cover i.e. technical bid in cover A (Form A) and financial bid in cover B (Form B) within the stipulated period along with other relevant documents and demand draft of Rs. three lacs as earnest money. According to the petitioner, there were only two bidders. On 20th March, 2004 the technical bid as well as financial bid was opened and the petitioner made objection that the respondent No. 5 had not deposited the earnest money of Rs. three lacs by demand draft, which was one of the eligibility condition for participating in the said tender. It is alleged that the respondents ignored the objection raised by the petitioner and opened the technical bid as well as financial bid and after opening the financial bid it came to the light that the price quoted by the petitioner was much lower than the price quoted by respondent No. 5. Hence, they filed writ petition. Later, in supplementary affidavit the petitioner stated that the respondents have awarded the contract to respondent No. 5 ignoring all norms including deviating from the consistent stand of awarding contract to lowest bidder.

(3.) This Court considering the facts and circumstances on 12.5.2004 issued notice to respondent No. 5 for disposal of this writ petition making the Rule returnable within six weeks. It was made clear that if respondent No. 5 enters appearance before the expiry of the returnable date, the matter shall be listed immediately thereafter at the top of the supplementary list for final disposal. Till further orders, the respondents were restrained from accepting/making supply pursuant to the tender notice, contained in Annexure-1.