BARBRIK PROJECT LIMITED Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by decision of the Tender Committee dated 10.09.2014 whereby the bid of the petitionerCompany has been rejected, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) The petitionerCompany pursuant to notice dated 31.07.2014 of the Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand inviting bids through etender for widening and strengthening/reconstruction of GuaSalai Road from 2.00 kms. to 11.00 kms. for approximate value of Rs.7087.32910 lacs, participated in the tender process and duly submitted all required documents. However, the petitioner came to know that vide decision dated 10.09.2014, the bid of the petitionerCompany has been rejected on the ground that the bank certificate submitted by the petitionerCompany does not bear any date and thus, it does not fulfill Clause 4.3(g) of the SBD.

(3.) Mr. M.S. Mittal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitionerCompany referred to Clause 4.2(i) and 4.3(g) of SBD and submitted that even the format of the bank guarantee, a copy of which is available on internet, does not disclose any date which is required to be put on the bank certificate. The petitioner submitted its bank guarantee strictly in terms of the format which is made available by the respondentRoad Construction Department. Since the bank certificate issued in favour of the petitionerCompany mentions the exact description of the work for which etender was issued, it would not make any difference whether any date has been given on the bank certificate or not, because such a certificate could not have been issued prior to the notification for etender. It is further submitted that the bank certificates submitted by the successful bidders, copies of which have been annexed as Annexure7 and 7/1 series indicate that the certificates issued in favour of respondent nos. 5 and 6 are invalid bank certificates nonetheless, the respondentState of Jharkhand has chosen to award the work under contract to respondent nos. 5 and 6.