✦ Jharkhand High Court

HOPE v. The State of Jharkhand

C) No. 3849 of 2023ANANDA SEN4 min read

Case at a glance

Key paragraphs

  • Para 66. We are of the opinion that once a party participates in the tender process by filing a bid document and then he is disqualified, he cannot challenge the conditions mentioned in the documents. In this condition, we rely upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme…
  • Para 77. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the writ application is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.
  • Para 99. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. Grant urgent certified copy of this order as per the Rules. (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.) (Ananda Sen, J.) APK/VK

Judgment

SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J. SRI ANANDA SEN, J. --------- For the Petitioner: For the State: 02/Dated: 17.08.2023 --------- Mr. Soumitra Baroi, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar No.2., Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III --------- Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed the following, (Per, Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.) ORDER

1.

By filing this writ application, the petitioner through its Managing Trustee has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) for cancellation of the selection and grant of work order whereby and whereunder the Respondent No.8 namely ‘Gramin Samaj Kalyan Vikas Manch’ has been allotted the work for running Specialised Adoption Agency (SAA) and further Respondent No.9 namley ‘Samarpan’ has been allotted the work for running Child Care Institution (CCI) as would appear letter no. 24/Ji.Ba.San.E.Lo dated 15/02/2023 (Annexure-8) and the same has been done in complete violation of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and

2.

Protection) Amendment Act 2021 and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Amendment Rule, 2022; (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) commanding upon the concerned respondents for issuance of fresh tender strictly adhering to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Amendment Act, 2021 and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Amendment Rules, 2022 for running Specialised Adoption Agency and Child Care Institution in the district of Lohardaga; (iii) For issuance appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) that Your Lordships may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.”

2. The facts of the case at this stage are not disputed. On

15.12.2022 the Expression of Interest was invited by the office of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Lohardaga under the aegis of District Child Protection Unit, Department of Social Welfare for a project ‘Mission Vatsalya’ which is the project of the Central Government, wherein Child Care Institutions for 50 children in need of care and protection (CNCP) has to be run as per the Rules framed the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2021 and the Rules framed thereunder.

3.

Similarly, on the same day, i.e., on 15.12.2022 an Expression of Interest was invited by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Lohardaga under the aegis of the aforesaid Department for implementation of the Central Government Scheme wherein, Specialised Adoption Agency for 10 children, aged between 0 to 6 years has to be run as per the Rules framed under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2021 and the Rules framed thereunder.

4.

The petitioner along with others submitted the bids. However, the petitioner is disqualified as he did not satisfy two conditions. The first ground is that it was not registered under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the second ground that the annual turnover of the petitioner should be above Rs.50 lakhs.

5.

The petitioner knowing well the conditions mentioned in the standard bid document/NIT did participate in the said process and ultimately, he was found disqualified. At present, he is challenging the action of the respondents on the ground that these two conditions are not reasonable and therefore, this should not have been made part of the standard bid document.

6.

We are of the opinion that once a party participates in the tender process by filing a bid document and then he is disqualified, he cannot challenge the conditions mentioned in the documents. In this condition, we rely upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Silppi Constructions Contractors Vs. Union of India and Another, (2020) 16 SCC 489.

7.

In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the writ application is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.

9.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. Grant urgent certified copy of this order as per the Rules. (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.) (Ananda Sen, J.) APK/VK

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Jharkhand High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. C) No. 3849 of 2023). ← Search more judgments