LAWS(JHAR)-2003-12-81

SAMRAT SECURITIES AND INTELLIGENCE SERVICES PVT.LTD.THROUGH ITS MANAGER SUSHIL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On December 18, 2003
Samrat Securities And Intelligence Services Pvt.Ltd.Through Its Manager Sushil Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel on all sides. 2003(4) JLJR 364].

(2.) THE petitioner in that writ petition is the appellant before us. A notice dated 9.6.2002 inviting tenders was published by the Jharkhand Agricultural Marketing 80ard calling for quotations for the purpose of creating a panel for appointment of Security Personnel in the marketing yards (29 in number) in the State of Jharkhand. Certain conditions were stipulated in the notice inviting tenders. 19 tenders were submitted pursuant to the said notice inviting tenders. One Trimurty Securities and Intelligence Service Private Limited was the lowest tenderer. The Bihar Ex -Servicemen Securities Company Limited was the second lowest. Samrat Securities, who is the appellant before us, was the third lowest tenderer. Trimurty Securities and Intelligence Service Private Limited, the lowest tenderer, was eliminated for certain reasons. Though Trimurty Securities and Intelligence Service Private Limited filed a writ petition W.P. (C) No. 2278 of 2003 before this Court which was heard along with the writ petition giving rise to this appeal that writ petition was dismissed and Trimurty Securities and Intelligence Service Private Limited has not pursued its claim or challenged its elimination.

(3.) RESPONDENTS 2 and 3 filed their counter -affidavit contending that they had considered the respective claims and had found that respondent no. 4 was the second lowest tenderer and since they found that the lowest tenderer, Trimurty Securities and Intelligence Service Private Limited, was not qualified, respondent no. 4 was rightly chosen. Respondent no. 4 contended that it was duly qualified. It disputed the assertion that it was in arrears under the Employees Provident Fund Act and claimed that there was a registration for it under the Employees State Insurance Act and the Registration No. was 42 -6478/ 99 Patna. It was asserted that respondent no. 4 was fully qualified.