The dispute in this case relates to the grant of transportation and handling contract by the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’) for the year 2003-2004 for the district of Chapra.

2. On 12.1.2003 the Corporation issued a notice inviting tenders for appointment of Transporting and Handling Agents in a number of districts in the States of Bihar and Jharkhand. In response to the notice five tenders were submitted in the district of Chapra. The petitioner and respondent no. 6 were among the five tenderers. As per rules the tenders were first examined by the District Transport Committee, headed by the District Magistrate. The District Transport Committee found that three tenders did not satisfy the terms and conditions of the tender notice and consequently those tenders were rejected. In is meeting held on 6.5.1983 the District Transport Committee decided to forward the tenders submitted by the petitioner and respondent no. 6 (in that order) to the Corporation's Headquarter at Patna for further action. It is alleged by the petitioner that in the Corporation's Headquarter respondent no. 6 alone was called for negotiation and finally the contract was given to him disregarding the lower rates quoted by the petitioner.

3. On notice being issued, counter affidavits were filed both by the Corporation and respondent no. 6. At the time of hearing Mr. J.R Shukla, Sr. Advocate appearing for the Corporation also produced the original record for the perusal of the court.

4. On the basis of the materials on record Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate stated that the following facts are beyond dispute. Different transportation rates are given, depending upon the distance, e.g, upto 10 Kms, upto 20 Kms, upto 50 Kms, upto 100 Kms and over 100 Kms. And then an over-all average rate is worked out. The over-all average rate approved by the Corporation for the current year was Re 1.29 On the basis of the rates quoted by the petitioner the District Transport Committee worked out his overall average rate at Re 1.23 According to Mr. Dwivedi, there was an error in the calculation made by the Committee and on the rates given by the petitioner the over-all average would be Re 1.08). On the rates quoted by respondent no. 6, his over all average came to Re 1.50 But later, on the basis of negotiation with the Corporation he lowered down his over-all average rate to Re 1.40 (being still higher then the rate approved by the Corporation) and on this rate the contract was given to him.

5. Mr. Dwivedi further submitted that for the previous year the Corporation had paid Rs. 15,62,200/- for the transportation contract; on the petitioner's rates the total payment would come to Rs. 15,52,329/- and on the rates on which the contract was given to respondent no. 6 the total payment would come to Rs. 17,91,447/-.

6. These statements made by Mr. Dwivedi were not controverted either by Mr. Shukla or by Mr. K.N Chaubey, Sr. Advocate, appearing for respondent no. 6.

7. On behalf of the Corporation it was stated that the contract was not given to the petitioner because his papers were incomplete. He had not submitted (i) his permanent address duly verified by the District Magistrate of his home district and (ii) a description of his movable and immovable properties duly verified by the Sub-divisional Officer.

8. Clause 5 of the notice inviting tender reads as follows:

“5. Nividadataon Ko Nivida Ke Saath Sambandhit Zila Padadhikari/Upayukta Dawara Nirgat Charitra Praman Patra Dena Aniwarya Hai. Charitra Praman Patra Prakashan Ki tithi Ke 6 (Cheh) Maah Purwa Ki Awadhi Ka Nahi Hona Chahiye. Saath Hi Nividadataon Ko Aapne Grih Zila Ke Zila Padadhikari/Upayukta Se Satyapit Aapna Asthai Pata Ewam Anumandladhikari Se Chal Achal Sampati Ki Vivarni Sanlanaan Kami Hogi.”

9. The aforequoted provision demands a character certificate from the concerned District Magistrate, issued not before a period of six months from the date of publication of the tender notice. The submission of the character certificate is indispensable. Apart from the character certificate, the clause requires submission of permanent address verified by the Collector of the Home District and a description of moveable and immovable properties of the tenderer verified by the Sub-divisional Officer. The relevance and importance of the last two informations for the grant of contract cannot be doubted. But in regard to permanent address and description of properties the notice does not use the same stringent language as for character certificate even though all the three materials are clubbed together in the same clause.

10. On behalf of the Corporation it is stated that though the petitioner had submitted a character certificate as required under clause 5, he did not submit his permanent address verified by the Collector and in regard to the description of his moveable and immovable properties he submitted a certificate from the Anchal Adhikari (Circle Officer) and not from the Sub-divisional Officer.

11. Mr. Shukla submitted that the omissions in the papers submitted by the petitioner were over-looked by the District Transport Committee but these came to light on scrutiny in the Corporation's Head Office and the petitioner's tender was not taken into consideration as it was held to be defective and incomplete. In support of the Corporation's decision not to take into consideration the tender submitted by the petitioner Mr. Shukla relied upon a Supreme Court decision in Ram Gajadhar Nishad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1990) 2 SCC 486 and a bench decision of this court in Gopal Narayan Singh v. State of Bihar, 1994 (2) PLJR 26.

12. Mr. Chaubey supported the submissions made by Mr. Shukla.

13. Mr. Dwivedi, counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was incorrect and wrong to say that the petitioner had not submitted his permanent address and the Board's decision to reject his tender on that ground was quite unreasonable and arbitrary. Learned counsel submitted that for furnishing the permanent address of the tenderer no particular mode or format was prescribed in the tender notice nor was it stipulated that the permanent address must be submitted on a separate sheet of paper and it must not form part of another document being submitted as per the requirement of the tender notice.

14. Mr. Dwivedi pointed out that a tenderer was required to file an experience certificate: further in case he had any truck(s) of his own to be used for the transportation work, he was also required to submit the papers concerning the truck (s) (in fact a tenderer having his own truck was entitled to a preferential consideration as provided under clause 6 of the tender notice). Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had earlier worked as Transporting Agent for the Corporation and for experience certificate, therefore, he had submitted the certificate issued by the District Manager of the Corporation itself. In this certificate his permanent address was shown as Village and Post Rampur Khoram, P.S Marhawrah, District Saran (Chapra) and the present address as Gandhi Chowk, Chapra. The certificate, however, relates to the contract for the year 1993-1994.

15. Mr. Dwivedi next pointed out that the petitioner had also submitted the owner books of his two trucks in which his address was shown as Gandhi Chowk, P.S & P.O Town Chapra. He, however, accepted that his address as shown in the experience certificate and the owner-books of the two trucks though may be considered adequate and satisfactory for any other purpose, cannot be said to be verified by the District Magistrate of the home district as required in the tender notice.

16. For the address of the petitioner, verified by the Collector, he turned to the character certificate, dated 2.9.2002 The character certificate which was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Saran was countersigned by the District Magistrate, Saran and it contains both the permanent (Village address) and the present (Town) address of the petitioner. The character certificate reads as follows:

“Shri Kedar Nath Singh son of Shri Bigan Singh presently residing at (Hal Mokam) Gandhi Chowk, Chapra, Post Chapra, Nagar Thana, Thana Marhawrah, Permanent (Asthai) Rampur XX XX XX XX XX”

17. Mr. Dwivedi submitted that this certificate fully satisfied the requirement of both character certificate and a certificate of his addresses, including permanent address.

18. I am inclined to accept the submission made by Mr. Dwivedi and I am of the view that the three materials (experience certificate, owner books of two trucks and the character certificate) certainly satisfy the requirement of submission of permanent address verified by the District Magistrate substantially, if not formally and strictly and, therefore, the petitioner's tender was not liable to be rejected for non-production of his permanent address verified by the District Magistrate. In this regard I find the decisions, relied upon by Mr. Dwivedi in Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works, (1991) 3 SCC 273 much closer to the facts of the case in hand than the two decisions relied upon by Mr. Shukla.

19. Coming now to the certificate in regard to the moveable and immovable properties it is undeniable that the certificate produced by the petitioner was issued by the Circle Officer and not by the Sub-divisional Officer. But at the same time it cannot be overlooked that the record of the landed property is maintained at the Circle Office and it is the Certificate Officer who issues the certificate in the first instance which is authenticated and countersigned by the Sub-divisional Officer.

20. On the issue of property certificate I think that had the Corporation realised the correct legal position in regard to the submission of permanent address by the petitioner, his tender would not have been rejected solely on the ground that the property certificate submitted by him was not verified by the Sub-divisional Officer. This is for three reasons; first, as already noted it is not the case that there was no property certificate at all. There was a property certificate though not issued/verified by the Sub-divisional Officer. Secondly, the difference in the rates quoted by the petitioner and respondent no. 6 was quite substantial and though the lowest quoted rates may not be the sole determining factor, normally the Corporation is expected to make an endeavour to save as much money as possible on giving contracts to outside agencies. It is not the case of the Corporation that the rates quoted by the petitioner were unrealistic or were too low to be feasible. Thirdly, in any event there was going to be some delay in finalisation of the contract because the Corporation had entered into negotiation with respondent no. 6. The time taken in negotiation with respondent no. 6 could be profitably used by asking the petitioner to either produce a fresh property certificate issued by the Sub-divisional Officer or to get the certificate submitted by him verified by him and thus to rectify the defect which in the totality of circumstances of this case does not appear to be so basic and fundamental as to put his tender out of consideration.

21. I am, therefore, clearly of the view that a material error was committed in rejecting the petitioner's tender and granting the contract to respondent no. 6 treating him as the lone tenderer. The Corporation is, therefore, directed to reconsider the matter of grant of contract, provided the petitioner produces a property certificate issued/verified by the Sub-divisional Officer within 15 days from today. In case the petitioner fails to do so the contract awarded to respondent no. 6 shall remain undisturbed for the period under the agreement. In case, however, the petitioner produces a valid property certificate within 15 days from today the matter of appointment of Transporting and Handling Agent would be reconsidered by the Corporation in the light of this judgment and if need be by holding fresh negotiations with both the petitioners and respondent no. 6. A final decision must be taken within 15 days from the date of submission of the property certificate by the petitioner.

22. In the result this writ petition is allowed subject to the observations and directions made above but with no order as to costs.