The Orissa High Court upheld the allotment of work via e-tender and ruled that the demise of one partner not to take away right of proprietor to continue agency.
The petitioners, M/s. Das Enterprise & Anr participated in an e-tender process, which was floated by the Executive Officer, Nakashipara Panchayat Samiti and were unsuccessful. They are aggrieved by the award of some of the works in favour of the respondent no.5, Rakhi Paul.
The grounds of challenge of the decision of the panchayat samiti are as follows:- A) The respondent no.5 did not participate in her own capacity but as a partner of an unregistered partnership firm which had dissolved on the death of the other partner. B) The bid documents were submitted by “Rakhi Paul” as a partner of the said firm. Such participation was illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Notice Inviting Tender.
The Advocate for the State respondents has submitted a completion certificate granted to the agency named as “Buddhadeb Paul” wherefrom it appears that the agency was named and styled as “Buddhadeb Paul”. The agency had been executing similar contracts since 2018. Rakhi Paul has been recognized as the proprietor.
The State respondents have further submitted that the agency was named and styled as Buddhadeb Paul but the proprietor of the agency was Rakhi Paul. The said fact was available from the records. The advocate for the panchayat samiti has handed over a document, namely, the registration certificate of the agency “Buddhadeb Paul”. The said registration was issued in the name of Rakhi Paul, as the proprietor.
The Court of Justice Shampa Sarkar observed that “The business is in the nature of a proprietorship and the legal name is Rakhi Paul. The trade registration issued by the panchayat authorities indicates the same. The trade licence granted under Section 12(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 also indicates that the Buddhadeb Paul is the trade name and Rakhi Paul is the proprietor.”
“The allegations that the works had been allotted to a deceased person and to a non-existing partnership firm, are not correct in view of the above factual findings” the Court concluded.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
