Case Law Details
Aman Pathak Vs Chief Income Tax Commissioner (Patna High Court)
In a significant ruling, the Patna High Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed by Aman Pathak challenging the Income Tax Department’s decision to disqualify his bid for leasing office space. The court upheld the evaluation process conducted by the Building Hiring Committee, concluding that the petitioner’s technical bid did not meet the necessary criteria.
The case centers around a dispute concerning the lease of office space to the Income Tax Department in Ara, Bihar. The petitioner, Aman Pathak, inherited a property that had been leased to the Income Tax Department since 1999. Over the years, the lease agreements were renewed multiple times, with the most recent extension set to expire on March 31, 2024.
In February 2024, the Income Tax Department issued a notice inviting bids for leasing office space in Ara. The petitioner submitted his technical and financial bids, hoping to continue the lease arrangement. However, on April 19, 2024, the Building Hiring Committee, chaired by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, informed Pathak that his bid had been disqualified based on the evaluation of the technical bid.
Pathak subsequently filed a writ petition challenging the disqualification notice, arguing that the Income Tax Department had unjustly disqualified his bid without providing clear reasons. He further contended that the Department’s decision to vacate his premises after 24 years of occupancy was arbitrary and lacked transparency.
Upon hearing the arguments, the Patna High Court meticulously examined the case records and the processes followed by the Building Hiring Committee. The Court noted that the committee evaluated the bids not only on the documents submitted but also through a physical inspection of the properties by its members. The petitioner’s bid was found lacking in certain technical aspects, leading to its disqualification.
The Court emphasized that the petitioner had willingly participated in the bidding process by submitting his proposal under the terms laid out by the Income Tax Department. After his bid was evaluated and found inadequate, he could not legitimately challenge the outcome simply because it did not favor him. The Court also pointed out that the final lease agreement allowed the Department to vacate the premises by providing a three-month notice, a term that was clearly agreed upon by both parties.
The High Court’s decision underscores the principle that government bodies have the authority to establish and follow specific criteria for evaluating bids, especially in matters involving public interest. As long as the evaluation process is conducted transparently and within the bounds of the law, courts are unlikely to intervene in the decisions made by these bodies.
Conclusion: The dismissal of Aman Pathak’s petition by the Patna High Court reinforces the legitimacy of the Income Tax Department’s bid evaluation process. It highlights the necessity for bidders to adhere to established criteria and the importance of transparency in governmental decision-making. The judgment serves as a reminder that legal challenges to administrative decisions must be grounded in substantial evidence of procedural impropriety or violation of legal rights, neither of which was evident in this case.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PATNA HIGH COURT
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application praying for setting aside the notice dated 19.4.2024 issued under the signature of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Patna whereby the petitioner was declared not qualified on the evaluation of technical bid submitted by the bidders including the petitioner.
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the authorities of the Income Tax Department entered into an agreement dated 15.12.1999 with his grandmother by which the ground floor of her house situated in Ward no.17, Holding no.863 at Katria, Ara was taken on rent for office space for a period of five years. Subsequently the property in question was transferred in the name of the petitioner’s mother and once again the respondent-authorities of the Income Tax Department entered into a lease agreement dated 5.8.2009 hiring the said building on a rent of Rs.14,000/ per month. The lease was renewed for a further period of three years on 25.6.2015 and for a further period of 1 year 11 months on 26.8.2022. It was finally extended till 31.3.2024.
4. It is further case of the petitioner that a notice was published by the Income Tax Department in the daily newspaper on 16.2.2024 expressing its intention to hire a building or part of the building on lease/rent for its office premises at Ara. Along with others, the petitioner also offered his technical and financial bid. The Building Hiring Committee which is under the Chairmanship of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax along with the other members informed the petitioner on 19.4.2024 that he had not been found to be qualified for opening of financial bid upon evaluation of the technical bid submitted by the bidders. It is against this notice dated 19.4.2024 issued by the Building Hiring Committee finding the petitioner not to have qualified on evaluation of the technical bid that the instant application has been preferred.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by notice dated 19.4.2024, the Building Hiring Committee of the Department has found the petitioner to be not qualified, however no reasons have been assigned for the same in the notice.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, this Court finds that the petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the action of the respondents-Income Tax Department that having taken the premises in question on rent and having run its office for a period of more than 24 years, the respondents chose to vacate the premises of the petitioner without assigning any reasons for not continuing thereof. It is not in dispute that the last lease agreement entered into between the parties on 1.7.2023, copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure P/5, gave right to the Income Tax Department to terminate the lease at any time giving to the lessor three month’s notice in writing of its intention to do so. The said lease agreement also came to an end on 31.3.2024. The petitioner is not alleging violation of any of the terms of the lease.
7. Further the notice inviting proposals as seen from Annexure P/6 was published on 16.02.2024. The petitioner also had bid under Annexure P/6, but was disqualified. After having thus bid and failed, the petitioner cannot turn around and challenge vacation of his premises.
8. Further, from the material on record as also the averments made in the writ application, it transpires that bids submitted by the bidders including the petitioner was evaluated by the Building Hiring Committee of the Income Tax Department under the Chairmanship of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Patna and of which the Income Tax Officer (HQ), Patna, the Income Tax Officer, Ara, Ward 1 (4), Ara and the Income Tax Officer (Technical) I.T. Building, Patna were members.
9. In the opinion of this Court, the suitability etc. of the premises of the bidders having been evaluated not only on the basis of technical bid submitted but also by visit of the members of the Building Hiring Committee to the premises in question on 16.4.2024, as is borne out from paragraph no.14 read with Annexure-P/7 of the writ application, the Court finds no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner.
10. The writ application is dismissed.
Author Bio
