KUMAR SERVICES Vs. JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ for commanding upon the respondents to include the bid submitted by the petitioner and to negotiate price with him considering the facts that the petitioner is fully entitled to be considered in the tender number 119/J.S.E.B./PR/ 2002, dated 27.06.2002 and as the respondent Nos. 6 to 10 are either not eligible or not entitled to be considered so for a direction upon respondent no. 1 & 2 to make a thorough enquiry into the entire matter of aforesaid tender considering the facts that the respondent no. 3 has intentionally and due to the reasons best known to him not opened the financial bid of the petitioner on frivolous or non disclosed ground and not to award the tender aforesaid in favour of any of the respondents Nos. 6 to 10 or a group of them unless the financial bid of the petitioner is also opened and the petitioner is also given opportunity to substantiate his claim so far the tender in question is concerned.

(2.) SHORT question to be answered in this writ is whether the petitioner has been discriminated against the respondent No. 6 to 10 on account of any malafide on the part of respondent No. 3 against the petitioner.

(3.) ACCORDING to petitioner, which is a partnership firm. The Board respondent i.e. respondent No. 1 to 3 are still taking work of bill preparation/bill distribution through two separate private agencies that is to say one agency was for preparation of the monthly energy bills and the other agency is engaged in serving the bills to consumers. The petitioner admits that as per the new proposed system (tender) one agency is now supposed to do all jobs as mentioned in the tender. The petitioner claims that he is a working contractor of the respondent at Ranchi and Jamshedpur and is engaged in distribution of bills, he has also got full infrastructure for bill preparation and other connected works. The petitioner alongwith respondent No. 6 to 10 and as many as 13 other tenderer submitted his bid alongwith required document/certificates hence he got a right to be considered in the commercial and technical part as well as also in the price part of the bidding in connection with the tender in question. The further claim of the petitioner is that respondent Nos. 6 to 10 did not submit any of the requisite documents and papers and so far respondent No. 6 to 10 are concerned they do not even have the requisite experience as required as per the terms and conditions of the tender. Specifically with regard to respondent No. 6 it has been averred that he did not submit the methodology of working which was compulsory to be submitted and he had no experience of working in the last 2 years and he submitted the experience certificate of some other firms, which was not supposed to be accepted. With regard to respondent No. 7 it was stated that he had no experience as required but he also gave the experience of other firms. The respondent No. 8 also did not submit requisite experience. Respondent No. 9 did not submit Income Tax Clearance Certificate and it also did not submit the methodology. With regard to respondent No, 10 it was stated by the petitioner that he also had not submitted the experience details in the filed.