RAJIV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BIHAR State Food and Civil supplies Corporation moves foodgrains in large quantities intra district and inter district. It requires transporters for doing the said job. For each district, as per its policy decision, separate notice inviting tenders are issued and for each district, there 'is a District transport Committee which then scrutinizes the tenders and then makes a recommendation for final selection to the Managing Director of the Corporation. In the present case, Rajiv Kumar, the writ petitioner in the first writ application applied pursuant to one such notice inviting tender. He was held to be ineligible and his tender was rejected. The District Transport committee then selected respondent No. 9 to the first writ application and recommended his selection to the Managing Director. As such petitioner, in the first writ application, has challenged his disqualification and selection of respondent No. 9, namely, Sunil Kumar Singh. In the second writ application, pursuant to the same very notice inviting tender, Sunil Kumar Singh being the writ petitioner in the second writ application, was originally recommended for selection by the District Transport Committee and his selection was approved by the managing Director of the Corporation but on a later complaint by the petitioner of the first writ application, the Managing Director recalled his earlier order and cancelled his selection. Thus, the writ petitioner in the second writ application has challenged the cancellation of his selection.

(2.) AS both writ applications deal with the same tender, with consent of parties, they have been heard together at the stage of admission itself for the purpose of final disposal.

(3.) BIHAR State Food and Civil Supplies corporation have filed a detailed counter-affidavit in the first writ application which covers the controversy so far as the second writ application is concerned. In the counter-affidavit, apart from stating other things, it has been stated that noticing various controversies, the Corporation has now decided to rescind the tender in totality and issue a fresh tender which process has been stayed by this Court by interim order passed in the first writ application. The petitioners of the two writ applications, as they were challenging their rejection, chose not to participate in the re-tender. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the re-tender, the tender forms have not been opened at all because in fact consequent to the stay order, no tenders were filed at all.