Dismissed¶26

Bindeshwar Yadav Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC5 Mar 2024CWJC/466/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna HC CWJC No.466 of 2023, dt. 05-03-2024 (NAFR); writ petition DISMISSED; tender/technical-bid challenge by competing bidder (Bindeshwar Yadav Construction Pvt. Ltd.) against qualification of respondent no. 9 (Maa Construction); respondent no. 9 later disqualified in further technical bid; Court declines to precipitate disciplinary action against erring officials; key theme: Article 226 of the Constitution is not a platform to settle scores between bidders; bench: K. Vinod Chandran, CJ (oral judgment) with Harish Kumar, J.

What did the court decide?

Since a review has been made and respondent no. 9 has been disqualified, it no longer lies in the mouth of the petitioner to press such submissions before this Court. ¶25

Bindeshwar Yadav Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether anything survived in the petitioner's writ petition challenging the Technical Bid Committee's decision qualifying respondent no. 9, given that a further technical bid was thereafter conducted and respondent no. 9 was disqualified. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

Since a review has been made and respondent no. 9 has been disqualified, it no longer lies in the mouth of the petitioner to press such submissions before this Court.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Any action against the erring officials is a matter for decision by the authorities themselves; it cannot be precipitated by orders of this Court, and not at all at the behest of a competing bidder.

¶25

Key takeaways

The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a platform to settle scores between bidders or to agitate grouses against government officials.ratio¶25
Nothing surviving in the petition and the petitioner's second relief being untenable, the writ petition stands dismissed.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bindeshwar Yadav Construction Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner, a competing bidder) v. The State of Bihar and others incl. Maa Construction (Respondent no. 9) — Patna High Court, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.466 of 2023, decided 05-03-2024; bench of K. Vinod Chandran, CJ and Harish Kumar, J; oral judgment per the Chief Justice (NAFR). The petitioner was aggrieved by the Technical Bid Committee's decision qualifying respondent no. 9. Counsel for respondent no. 9 disclosed that a further technical bid had since been conducted and respondent no. 9 disqualified, leaving 'nothing' in the petition; the petitioner nevertheless pressed its second relief — action against respondent no. 9 in light of respondent no. 3's direction, and against the authorities who ignored mandatory qualification requirements. The Chief Justice held that, with the review made and respondent no. 9 disqualified, such submissions no longer lay in the petitioner's mouth; that action against erring officials is for the authorities' own decision and cannot be precipitated by judicial order, least of all at a competing bidder's behest; and that the Article 226 remedy 'is not a platform to settle scores between bidders or agitate the grouses against government officials.' Writ petition dismissed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.466 of 2023

¶2

====================================================== Bindeshwar Yadav Construction Pvt. Ltd. through its proprietor Rohit Kumar Yadav, aged about 50 years (Male), S/o- Bindeshwar Prasad Yadav, R/o- Ward No.6, Village- Hariraha, Rustampur, P.S.- Laukahi, District- Madhubani.

¶3

... ... Petitioner/s

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶6

The Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Engineer-in-Chief Rural Works Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Chief Engineer 4-Cum Nodal Officer Rural Works Department Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The Chief Engineer-3 Rural Works Department Bihar, Patna.

¶10

The Secretary to the Engineer-in-Chief (Technology) Rural Works Department, Govt, of Bihar, Patna.

¶11

The Superintending Engineer Work Circle Rural Works Department Darbhanga.

¶12

The Executive Engineer Rural Works Division Phulparas, Madhubani,

¶13

Patna High Court CWJC No.466 of 2023 dt.05-03-2024 2/3

¶14

District- Madhubani.

¶15

Maa Construction (BID ID No. 518748) having its office at Village and P.O.- Dhanaunja, P.S.- Phulparas, District- Madhubani.

¶16

... ... Respondent/s

¶17

======================================================

¶18

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s :	Mr. Gautam Kejriwal, Advocate Mr.Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate Mr. Mukund Kumar, Advocate Mr. Aditya Raman, Advocate
For the State :	Mr.Kumar Alok (SC7)
For the respondent no.9 : ===================	Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Advocate Ms. Riya Giri, Advocate ===================================

¶19

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶20

Date : 05-03-2024

¶21

The petitioner is aggrieved with the decision of the Technical Bid Committee, which qualified respondent no. 9.

¶22

Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 9 appears and submits that there was a further technical bid conducted and he was disqualified. In such circumstance, nothing survives in the writ petition.

¶23

Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, is pressing for the second relief. The petitioner prays that

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.466 of 2023 dt.05-03-2024 3/3

¶25

appropriate steps should be taken against respondent no. 9, in the light of the direction issued by respondent no. 3 and also against the concerned authorities responsible for ignoring the mandatory requirements for qualification by the Technical Bid Committee. In any circumstance, now since a review has been made, and respondent no. 9 is disqualified, it does lie in the mouth of the petitioner to make such submission before this Court. Whether any action be taken against the erring officials would be the decision of the authorities and cannot be precipitated by orders of this Court and not at all, at the behest of a competing bidder. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a platform to settle scores between bidders or agitate the grouses against government officials.

¶26

The writ petition would stand dismissed.

¶27

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)

¶28

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶29

ranjan/-

¶30

AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 07.03.2024 Transmission Date NA

Bindeshwar Yadav Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bindeshwar Yadav Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Kumar Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

M/s Aasha Construction (Civil and Electrical Contractor) Vs The State of Bihar

Sl Rathour Hotels Private Ltd. Vs Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.

M/s Lakshmi Traders Makhdumsarai Vs The State of Bihar

Harif Sahni Vs The State of Bihar

Bank of India Vs Shailendra Kumar Pandey