PATLIPUTRA CONSTRUCTION Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) How official authority is flagrantly abused in matters of selection for issuing purchase orders is amply illustrated by this case.

(2.) The two writ petitioners are manufacturers and suppliers of various goods and have challenged the decision of the Central Purchase Committee headed by the Director, Purchase, Store and Material Management, Water Resources Department, Patna by which they have selected private respondents No. 7 and 8, namely, M/s Sale Point of Patna and M/s J.R. Enterprises of Sitamarhi for supply of nyion crates for anti-flood erosion work. Private respondents No. 7 and 8 have appeared filed their counter affidavits. State, in the Department of Water Resources, have filed their counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit. Rejoinder to all have also been filed by the petitioners and as such, with consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself.

(3.) On 29.12.2008, a decision was taken to issue emergent Tender No. 2 of the year, 2008-2009 for purchase of various articles in various groups by the Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna. Group 2 of the said emergent tender related to supply of nylon crates with which we are concerned. The said tender was published in the newspapers in the 1st week of January, 2009. It clearly provided that the tender papers would be sold between 5th and 14th January, 2009 and the last date for receipt of tender was fixed as 15th January, 2009. The tenders were to be filed in two separate sealed envelopes. First being the technical bid and the second being the financial bid. 16.1.2009 was fixed as the date when technical bids would be opened and so far as financial bids are concerned, the date was to be informed later opening the technicals bids. The tenderers were, as per the notice inviting tender, required to give their capacity of production and storage space available with them. In the NIT, no period was indicated for completing supplies, if selected. It appears on 15.1.2009 in respect of nylon crates, 7 tenders were filed. On 16.1.2009, technical bids were opened. It appears that after opening the technical bid, on 16.1.2009, "some decision was taken"in the Water Resources Department to verify the status of the industries of the 7 tenderers and the available storage space with them. Why this Court has used the expression that "some decision was taken" because the State has not brought on record any such decision in spite of orders of this Court yet it has brought on record and admitted that the respondent-Director, Purchase, Store and Material Management, Water Resources Department, Patna wrote to various authorities making specific enquiries about individual tenderer at different times, details of which will be discussed later as they are material and important. At this juncture, I may also like to point out that even though some decision was taken and enquiries weru made in regard to the credentials of the tenderers, such enquiries were selectively made not at one time but by individual letters on different dates. The purpose and the intention behind it remain undisclosed. What is more curious is as would be seen from the fact to be discussed later on. What was their purpose is also not disclosed because adverse reports even did not deter the Central Purchase Committee in awarding tenders to private respondents.