KAMAL PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Memo No. 1359, dtd. 24/6/2023 i.e. Annexure-7 to the writ application, whereby the bid submitted by the petitioner for Door Step Delivery, i.e., DSD in Chandrapura Block for the financial year 2023-2024 has been rejected. He has also prayed for a writ of mandamus seeking a direction for stay of tender process of the DSD for the aforesaid period. The rest of the prayers are consequential prayers like verifying the reasons of the IP address being used by L-1 and L-2 bidders etc.

(2.) The facts of the case may be stated in a chronological order as follows : -

(3.) In developing the case of the petitioner, learned counsel, Mr. Rajan Raj, would rely upon a reported case of the High Court of Bombay. In S. K. Translines Private Limited through its Director, Hemant Vs. Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation Limited through its Chairman/Managing Director and others, 2016 SCC Online Bom 16131 wherein, the question arose before the High Court of Bombay, was that whether submission of the bid document from a single IP address would be conclusive proof of a collusion between the bidders and the Bombay High Court came to the conclusion that it is not so. We take into consideration the exact words used by the High Court of Bombay in paragraph 39 as follows: