Case Background
This case arose out of a government tender for road repair work in West Champaran, Bihar.
The Rural Works Department issued an e-tender notice on 16.01.2020. The work was for initial rectification and surface renewal of selected roads, as described in paragraph 9 of the notice inviting tender (NIT).
The petitioner submitted a bid. Respondent no. 8, a private construction firm, also submitted an e-tender on 23.02.2020. According to the petitioner, that bid did not comply with the tender norms.
The petitioner claimed that respondent no. 8 resubmitted its tender online on 24.02.2020 but did not submit the original documents and papers required under the NIT. Despite this, a work order was issued in favour of respondent no. 8 and an agreement was executed on 31.07.2020 after it was treated as the successful bidder.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court under its civil writ jurisdiction. The prayer was to quash the tender decision in favour of respondent no. 8 on the basis that it violated the terms and conditions of the NIT.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The writ petition came before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah as an oral judgment delivered on 08.02.2021.
The core allegation was very specific. The petitioner said that under the NIT, by 15:00 hours on 24.02.2020, each bidder had to submit the original instruments of the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD), cost of Bill of Quantities (BOQ), and an affidavit regarding correctness of information given in the bid.
It was argued that respondent no. 8 did not submit these original documents on 24.02.2020, and that therefore its bid should have been rejected as non-compliant. Instead, the Department accepted the bid and awarded the work.
To support this claim, the petitioner relied on information obtained under the Right to Information Act. The Public Information Officer-cum-Assistant Engineer, Rural Works Department, Bagaha, by letter dated 01.07.2020, supplied 370 pages of documents that respondent no. 8 had uploaded.
The same officer mentioned that the resubmission acknowledgment had not been submitted by respondent no. 8. The petitioner used this to argue that the private contractor had not followed the NIT conditions and should be disqualified.
On the other side, the State respondents filed a counter affidavit. Their counsel explained that the NIT dated 16.01.2020 was duly floated through e-tendering, and that the petitioner’s version about non-submission of originals at the time of resubmission was not correct.
The State’s stand was that original documents and papers were not required to be submitted again at the time of re-submission of the tender. According to them, respondent no. 8 had already submitted the originals before the Technical Bid Committee. Those documents were examined and found genuine and correct, so respondent no. 8 was rightly declared qualified in the technical bid.
The Court noted that the petitioner’s complaint had, in fact, triggered an administrative inquiry. The Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department, Bihar, by letter dated 05.06.2020, called for a report from the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Bagaha-1, on the issue raised.
The Executive Engineer submitted a report on 06.06.2020. The report stated that, on inquiry, it was found that respondent no. 8 had submitted the acknowledgment at 9:10 p.m. on 23.02.2020.
The Court also took note of the subsequent tender processing. A meeting of the Departmental Tender Committee took place on 29.07.2020, where the financial bid was considered. In that meeting, respondent no. 8 was declared to have qualified in the financial bid.
Further, the Technical Bid Committee met on 27.07.2020. It specifically considered the petitioner’s complaint that:
(a) The acknowledgment submitted by respondent no. 8 to the Rural Works Division, Bagaha-1, was dated 23.02.2020 at 9:10 p.m., relating to submission of tender.
(b) However, work was allotted to respondent no. 8 on the basis of the resubmitted tender dated 24.02.2020 at 1:50 p.m., even though the original of that resubmitted bid had allegedly not been submitted to the Division.
The Technical Bid Committee examined both the complaint and the Executive Engineer’s inquiry report of 06.06.2020. It found that three contractors, including the petitioner and respondent no. 8, had submitted their envelopes for the technical bid in the office on 24.02.2020. These envelopes were opened at 3:30 p.m. the same day.
The Committee further found that all three contractors had submitted documents in the office and had also uploaded them online. After reviewing the materials, the Committee concluded that respondent no. 8 had not submitted the acknowledgment of the final bid submission made on 24.02.2020 at 1:50 p.m.
However, importantly, the Committee noted that there was no provision in the Model Bidding Document (MBD) requiring submission of such bid acknowledgment. On that basis, it did not treat the absence of the acknowledgment as a violation.
During arguments, the petitioner’s counsel questioned how respondent no. 8 could have submitted original documents on 23.02.2020 at 9:10 p.m. before uploading the tender online. According to him, this showed that the norms of the NIT were not followed, and therefore respondent no. 8 should be declared ineligible.
At this stage, the Court turned directly to the tender conditions themselves. It reproduced clause numbers 5 and 7 of the NIT, which fixed:
Clause 5: Last date and time for uploading tender document by bidder — Date 24.02.2020 up to 15:00 hrs.
Clause 7: Last date, time and place for submission of original instrument of EMD, cost of BOQ and affidavit regarding correctness of information provided with bid document — Till 15:00 hrs on 24.02.2020, to be submitted at the office of the concerned Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer, or Chief Engineer.
After reading these two clauses together, the Court gave a clear finding. It held that the process of uploading the tender and the process of filing original documents are “separate and independent of each other”. There was no bar in the NIT against filing the original documents before uploading the tender.
On the admitted facts, respondent no. 8 had submitted the original documents or acknowledgment in the office of the respondent on 23.02.2020 at 9:10 p.m. It had also submitted the envelope pertaining to the technical bid in the office of the respondents on 24.02.2020 at 1:50 p.m., and had uploaded the tender documents online.
Because the NIT did not require a separate acknowledgment of final bid submission to be filed, and the MBD also contained no such condition, the Court found no discrepancy in the way respondent no. 8 submitted its bid.
In light of this, the Court held that there was no illegality in accepting respondent no. 8’s tender. As a result, the main ground on which the petitioner had attacked the award of work failed.
The Court concluded that it found no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the tender awarded to respondent no. 8 remained undisturbed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for contractors and government departments involved in e-tendering.
First, it clarifies that, where the NIT treats uploading of bids and submission of originals as separate processes, a bidder can submit original documents even before uploading the online tender, so long as it is done within the prescribed time limit.
Second, the Patna High Court stressed that courts will look at the actual wording of the NIT and the Model Bidding Document. If there is no clear condition requiring submission of a particular acknowledgment or document, a bidder cannot be disqualified merely for not giving that document.
Third, the case shows that if a complaint is made, the department’s internal inquiry and the findings of the Technical Bid Committee carry weight. When such bodies have examined the issue and found compliance with the tender conditions, the High Court will be slow to interfere.
For small contractors, this case sends a message to carefully read the tender clauses and base any challenge strictly on what is written there, not on assumptions about procedure.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Did respondent no. 8 violate the NIT by not submitting original documents and bid acknowledgment in the prescribed manner and time, making the award of tender illegal?
Answer: No. The Court held that the NIT treated uploading of bids and filing of originals as separate processes, allowed originals to be filed before uploading, and did not require submission of final bid acknowledgment. Respondent no. 8’s bid was therefore valid.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The judgment does not mention or rely on any other decided cases.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7138 of 2020
Case Title: Munna Kumar Jaiswal v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2022 (1) PLJR 301
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah
Advocates: Mr. Braj Kishore Singh Chouhan, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. Satya Vrat, AC to GP-10, for the State respondents
Nature of the Case: Civil writ petition challenging award of government tender
Date of Judgment: 08.02.2021
Link to Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjNzEzOCMyMDIwIzEjTg==-4eh4btPvIoM=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
