M/S MA LAXMI CONSTRUCTION, THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR LAXMI KANT DUBEY v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF JHARKHAND
WPC/2780/2026 · 2026-06-16
Rajesh Shankar
Writ Petition (Civil)body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 17013 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 17013 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:JHHC:17295-DB
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 2780 of 2026
M/s Ma Laxmi Construction, through its proprietor Laxmi Kant Dubey, son of Rajendra Dubey, resident of at Dubey Tahle, P.O. & P.S.- Majhiaon, District- Garhwa
... ... Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Secretary, Rural Development Department (Rural Work Affairs), Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Chief Engineer, Rural Development Department (Rural Work Affairs), Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. The Executive Engineer, Work Division, Garhwa, Rural Development Department (Rural Work Affairs), Garhwa
5. Munna Kumar Singh, son of Ram Charitar Singh, resident of Village- Sirha, P.O.- Nawda, P.S.- Meral, District- Garhwa
... … Respondents
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate
Mr. Shivam Anand Pathak, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Vibhor Mayank, A.C. to A.G.
-----
Order No. 02
Dated: 16.06.2026
1. At the request of Mr. Amritansh Vats, the learned counsel for the petitioner, leave is granted to amend the cause title. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner challenges the rejection of its technical bid under Tender Notice dated 21.08.2024 concerning the construction of a road from NH-343 Main Road to Loto Primary School via Tongri Tola, Garhwa. 4. The decision to reject the petitioner’s technical bid was taken and communicated to the petitioner on 07.10.2025. This petition was
2026:JHHC:17295-DB
2
filed on 20.12.2025 after the work in question had already been awarded to Mr Munna Kumar Singh, the corrected 5th respondent, vide letter dated 21.11.2025. Office objections were cleared after a couple of opportunities, only after 26.03.2026. 5. The technical bid was rejected on the grounds that the petitioner- bidder did not include the following information and documents with its technical bid as specified in “Instructions to Bidders”:
“5.1(d)(ii)- Unique Document Identification Number (UDIN) has been made mandatory by ICAI from 1st July 2019 for all Audit/Assurance/Attest Functions. Hence, Audited Turnover and Balance sheet containing UDIN No. from Financial Year 2019-20 is mandatory for bidders. Audited Turnover Summary must contain UDIN No. 5.1(d)(iii)- 26A S of Income Tax (Applicable for tender amount more than 2.5 cr.)”
6. At least from the pleadings in the petition, there is no clear statement regarding compliance with the above mandatory requirement. In paragraph 17 of the petition, however, the petitioner argued that the petitioner had the necessary document, along with the Unique Document Identification Number (UDIN), on or before the cut-off date, which was 29.08.2024. He further argued that the possession of certain documents before the cut- off date may be mandatory, but their production is not. Therefore, the rejection of the technical bid is hyper-technical and untenable. 7. Mr Amritansh Vats learned counsel for the petitioner, after reiterating the above contention, further submitted that the UDIN had been disclosed along with the consolidated turnover certificate. Therefore, he submitted that there was compliance
2026:JHHC:17295-DB
3
with the tender conditions or, in any event, substantial compliance. 8. Mr Vibhor Mayank, learned A.C. to A.G., appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the tender notice was clear and categorical in specifying the requirement to submit an audited turnover and a balance sheet containing the UDIN.
Admittedly, this tender was for works assessed at more than Rs. 2.5 crores. He submitted that this condition was breached and there are no clear pleadings about the filing of the turnover certificate at Annexure- 4, even in some letters of the tender process. He added that even such a late filing would not constitute compliance. 9. Mr Vibhor Mayank further submitted that this is how the tender conditions have been interpreted by the respondents with respect to all bidders, and that the petitioner has not raised any allegation of hostile discrimination. He therefore submitted that this petition may be dismissed. 10. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 11. The requirement specified in the tender notice, which we have transcribed above, states that compliance is mandatory to avoid any ambiguity on this count. To emphasise the mandatory nature of this condition, the tender notice refers to the directions issued by the ICAI and certain provisions of the Income-tax Act. 12. From the pleadings coupled with the material produced on record, it is apparent that this condition was observed by the petitioner, only in breach. The mere possession of such a certificate before the cut-off date, but its non-production, cannot be accepted as
2026:JHHC:17295-DB
4
compliance or substantial compliance in such matters. 13. The tender notice had, in terms, provided that all bidders shall include the information set out in clause 5.1 and documents with their technical bids. One of the requirements was the audited turnover and balance sheet containing the UDIN. This was clearly not complied with. 14. Besides, even if we are to ignore the delay in clearing the office objection and the fact that the work in question was already allotted by the time the petition was filed, still, considering the breach, there is no case made out to interfere with the respondent’s decision to reject the petitioner’s technical bid for non-compliance with the mandatory term specified in the tender notice. 15.
There is no reason to doubt Mr Vibhor Mayank's submission that the respondent has uniformly applied this mandatory condition, and this is not a case where the petitioner has complained about any hostile discrimination or alleged malafide. The tender condition has been reasonably interpreted and uniformly applied. There is no hint of arbitrariness. 16. Accordingly, for all the above reasons, we dismiss this petition without any order for costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) June 16, 2026 Manish/Ritesh N.A.F.R. Uploaded on 19.06.2026