SPIDER PROTECTION SERVICES PVT LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR Vs. IMPERISHABLE SECURITY SERVICES PVT LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR KAUSTABH RANJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Arup Kumar Chongdar, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri S.D. Yadav, Additional Advocate GeneralIX for the State and Shri Karandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner.

(2.) The dispute centers around the tender relating to the placement of Security Guards at the Sadar Hospital, Sitamarhi. The facts in detail have been narrated by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and, therefore, it is not necessary to reproduce them once again but the dispute in short is that the respondent-petitioner filed the writ petition giving rise to this appeal challenging the work order dated 2nd of July, 2016 issued to the appellant for the said work on the ground that the respondent-petitioner had not been intimated about either the opening of the technical bid or the financial bid which was a sine qua non of the tender conditions and as a matter of fact the respondent-petitioner was kept away from participation in the tender bidding process as a result whereof prejudice has been caused to him. Other grounds were also taken in support thereof to which a response was filed by the State through a counter affidavit and a supplementary counter affidavit and the appellant who was the Respondent No. 8 in the writ petition also filed a response whereafter the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the writ petition deserves to be allowed on account of the procedural infirmities as pointed out by the learned Single Judge that hit Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge concluded that the manner of service of notice on the respondent-petitioner could not be proved and, therefore, the said action was treated to be unfair and even otherwise the learned Single Judge perused the records relating to the documents on which reliance had been placed by either side whereafter the writ petition was allowed.

(3.) This appeal is by the Respondent No. 8 contending that as a matter of fact there ought not to have been any interference inasmuch as the appellant was the lowest bidder when the financial bids were opened and no prejudice or malice could be demonstrated much less a procedural violation so as to allow any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India keeping in view the scope of interference which has time and again been spelt out by the Apex Court including that in the case of Michigan Rubber (India) Limited Vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in, 2012 8 SCC 216, Paragraph 24. Learned counsel submits that if the respondent-petitioner has failed to make out any case so as to establish that any special favour had been carved out in support of the bid of the appellant then in that event the action cannot be presumed to be arbitrary nor any public interest was being affected and consequently in view of the said proposition of law there is a limited scope of interference ignoring which the learned Single Judge has proceeded to allow the writ petition and which judgment deserves to be set aside.