In Rajeev Ranjan Kumar, (Proprietor M/s R.K. Enterprises) vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar, Patna. & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Partha Sarthy passed a 11-page long judgment dated August 4, 2025 dismissed the petition. This is the 13th judgement by Justice Pancholi as chief justice. He concluded:"22. We have gone through the impugned tender notices issued by the respondent-authority; the same cannot be termed as arbitrary or mala fide or irrational. It is for the employer/authority to prescribe the conditions of the tender and it appears that looking at the urgency of the matter, as the NIT in question is related to the work in respect of voter list/electoral roll/revision of voter list and its upgradation etc., the authority has thought it fit to issue a short-term NIT by prescribing the conditions therein. 23. We are of the view that this Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision taken by the respondent-authority. We are of the view that the scope of interference in such type of contractual or commercial matters is very limited. 24. We are, therefore, of the view that no case is made out by the petitioner to interfere with the same. 25. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed."
The other five respondents were: Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar, Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, District Election Officer-Cum-District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi and Deputy Election Officer, Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi.
The petition was filed for quashing of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT)/very short term tender dated July 2, 2025 issued by District Election Officer-Cum-District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, the respondent no. 4 for preparing voter list/electoral roll through ERO-Net, revision of such voter list, revision and constant upgradation of such list through data entry, scanning, uploading, publishing checklist, publishing electoral roll/voter list and other works relating to electoral roll/voter list for the eight Legislative Assembly constituencies of the District-Sitamarhi. The petitioner prayed that the respondents be directed not to proceed with the aforesaid NIT. The petitioner had also filed I.A. Nos. 01 of 2025 and 02 of 2025, by which the petitioner had challenged another NIT dated July 18, 2025 for the same work as well as the NIT dated July 19, 2025 for the same work. The aforesaid two NITs were issued after filing of the present petition, and therefore, by filing separate IAs, such NITs were also challenged. The petitioner referred to the averments made in the memo of petition and thereafter contended that respondent no. 4, on June 19, 2025, prior to the issuance of impugned NIT dated July 2, 2025, issued a similar tender for the same purpose, i.e., for preparing voter list/electoral roll through ERO-Net, revision of such voter list, revision and constant upgradation of such list through data entry, scanning, uploading, publishing checklist, publishing electoral roll/voter list and other works relating to electoral roll/voter list for the eight Legislative Assembly constituencies of the District-Sitamarhi. But the said NIT was deliberately not posted on the web portal of PRD or web portal with the link of NIC website. It was posted only on the portal relating to District-Sitamarhi. It was also submitted that objections were raised by the bidders. The respondent no. 4 signed the impugned NIT on July 2, 2025, and the same was published and brought to the public domain on July 5, 2025.
The grievance of the petitioner was that the said tender dated July 2, 2025 did not follow the Model Tender Invitation in many aspects. The counsel submitted that the model tender, as provided by the Election Department, Bihar, Patna, dated January 25, 2023 specifically provided the estimated value of the tender; however, the tender invitation in question did not mention the estimated value of the tender. It was further contended that as per the model tender, the security deposit amount was to be determined as 2% of the estimated value. However, in the impugned tender invitation notice, the amount of security deposit was determined as Rs. 1,00,000/- without mentioning any estimated value. Even Bihar Finance (Amendment) Rules, 2005, in its Rule 131O provided that the amount of bid security should ordinarily range between 2% to 5% of the estimated value of the goods to be procured. As per the model tender, it is mandatory to have a pre-tender meeting nine days before the date of opening of the bid. However, in the impugned NIT, no such provision for pre-tender meeting has been made. At this stage, it is also contended that, as per the model tender, the turnover of a tender participant has been kept at Rs. 40,00,000/- per annum for the last three years. However, in the impugned NIT, the minimum requirement of turnover was increased to Rs. 80,00,000/-. Therefore, the counsel urged that the respondents violated the model tender as provided by the Election Department, Bihar, The representation made by the petitioner in this regard, despite which no action was taken by the respondent-authorities and the respondents proceeded further with the NIT in question. The NIT dated July 2, 2025 was cancelled, and thereafter once again similar type of NITs came to be issued on July 18, 2025 and July 19, 2025. It was submitted that the last date of the opening of the technical bid was July 28, 2025. 13. Therefore, it was urged that the impugned NITs be quashed and direction be issued to the respondents to follow the model tender notice.
Advocate General opposed the present petition. He contended that the petitioner was not an aggrieved person and, in fact, he was not mentioned in the petition, as to how the petitioner was affected by the impugned NITs issued by the respondents. It was also contended that it appears that petitioner was championing the cause for other persons. It was further submitted that the model tender, upon which reliance is placed by the counsel for the petitioner, was merely a model guideline. However, it was for the concerned employer/authority to prescribe the condition of tender and, therefore, it was not open for the petitioner to assail the impugned NITs. The scope of interference, while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in such type of matter is very limited. He urged that the petition be dismissed.
Justice Pancholi observed:"17. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned Advocates and perused the materials on record." He referred to the in paragraph nos. 19 and 20 of decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. Vs. AMR Dev Prabha & Ors., reported in (2020) 16 SCC 759. The Supreme Court has observed:" “19. The counsel for the appellant, along with that
for C1-India highlighted how the goalpost was being changed by Respondent 1 throughout the litigation. Whereas before the High Court AMR Dev Prabha sought adherence to terms of NIT and strict procedural compliance, but later they wished to settle the matter at a lower price claiming larger public interest. This was claimed to demonstrate how AMR Dev Prabha's interest was, in fact, personal and not public, and only to win the tender one way or the other and not to maintain the sanctity of the auction process. The lack of on-the-spot protest, neither during the auction process, nor at the time of availing refund of the earnest money deposit; and the substantial delay in filing the writ petition (after more than 3 months of close of the auction process and 2 months from issue of the LOA) was nothing but an afterthought aimed at making a commercial opportunity out of litigation. Hence, the present proceedings were claimed to be an abuse of the process of law by AMR Dev Prabha and only a chance for arm twisting BCCL to award to it the tender, no better than a contractual enforcement of private rights. 20. Instead, it was submitted, that any possible infirmity was merely minor and inconsequential. There had been a substantive compliance of the tender process and the clauses of the notice inviting tender (“NIT”), and public interest of ensuring the lowest price discovery had been kept at the forefront. It was contended that hyper technical compliance was often not possible, nor desirable as often-a-times strict procedural compliance could defeat the ends of substantive equality, like in the present case.”
Justice Pancholi also referred to paragraph 50 of the Supreme Court's decision in Tata Motors Limited vs. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (BEST) & Ors., reported in (2023) 19 SCC 1. It reads: “50. This Court being the guardian of fundamental rights is duty-bound to interfere when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides and bias. However, this Court has cautioned time and again that courts should exercise a lot of restraint while exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial matters. This Court is normally loathe to interfere in contractual matters unless a clear-cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides or bias or irrationality is made out. One must remember that today many public sector undertakings compete with the private industry. The contracts entered into between private parties are not subject to scrutiny under writ jurisdiction. No doubt, the bodies which are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution are bound to act fairly and are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of superior courts but this discretionary power must be exercised with a great deal of restraint and caution. The courts must realise their limitations and the havoc which needless interference in commercial matters can cause. In contracts involving technical issues the courts should be even more reluctant because most of us in Judges' robes do not have the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon technical issues beyond our domain. The courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder. In fact, the courts must give “fair play in the joints” to the government and public sector undertakings in matters of contract. Courts must also not interfere where such interference will cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer.”
Justice Pancholi observed: "From the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it can be said that the Court should exercise a lot of restraint while exercising powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial matters. The Court is normally loath to interfere in contractual matters, unless a clear-cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides or bias or irrationality is made out. While reviewing the decision making process, the Court should not act as a court of appeal. 21. Keeping in view the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the facts of the present case are examined, it would reveal that on 02.07.2025, impugned NIT came to be issued for the purpose of preparing voter list, electoral roll through ERO-Net, and other related matters. Thereafter, the same has been cancelled, and once again, the same NITs were issued on 18.07.2025 and 19.07.2025. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while issuing the NIT in question, the respondents have not followed the Model Tender Invitation. It is the specific contention taken by the learned Advocate General that the Model Tender Invitation merely provides the guidelines for issuance of the tender notice. However, it is for the concerned respondent/authorities to prescribe the conditions of tender."
No comments:
Post a Comment