Disposed¶¶43

Shailendra Prasad Singh v. The State of Bihar

Tender – rejection of bid

Patna HC12 Feb 2025CWJC/17287/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court; Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17287 of 2024; decided 12-02-2025; oral judgment; tender bid rejection; Technical Committee; bidder held unresponsive; deficiency in bid papers; two groups of work (Daudnagar and Aurangabad); Rural Works Department / MMGSY Bihar; SBD document verification; tools and equipments ownership documents; withdrawal of tender; single remaining tenderer; no interference with authority's decision; petitioner free to participate in fresh tender; writ petition disposed off; Shailendra Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without interference with the authority's decision; petitioner left free to participate afresh if a new tender is floated. ¶¶43

Shailendra Prasad Singh Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17287 of 2024

¶2

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

¶3

Shailendra Prasad Singh S/o Late Raj Mohan Singh, R/o Village- More Dihari, P.S.- Jamhor, District- Aurangabad, Bihar.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Works Department, Bihar, Patna.

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

¶13

The Project Director, MMGSY, Bihar, Patna.

¶14

The Chief Engineer-2,, R.W.D. circle Gaya, Bihar.

¶15

The Technical Secretary to ENC, R.W.D. Bihar, Patna.

¶16

Superintending Engineer, RWD, Work Circle, Aurangabad, Bihar.

¶17

Executive Engineer, RWD, Works Division, Aurangabad, Bihar.

¶18

... ... Respondent/s

¶19

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Sr. Advocate Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Pratik Sinha, AC to GA- 5 ======================================================

¶20

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶21

and

¶22

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶25

Date : 12-02-2025

¶26

The petitioner, who had participated in the

¶27

tender, is aggrieved by the decision of the Technical

¶28

Committee holding him to be unresponsive.

¶29

Patna High Court CWJC No.17287 of 2024 dt.12-02-2025 2/4

¶30

The contention of the petitioner is that such decision was taken in confusion. The petitioner had applied for two groups of work and had to deposit documents regarding the ownership of tools and other equipments. For one of the group of works, the tender paper submitted by the petitioner was found to be incorrect and the complaint regarding such deficiency was also verified and found to be correct. However, with the other group of work, the papers submitted by the petitioner were complete in all respects. There was no complaint whatsoever with regard to any deficiency. It was verified and affirmed that all the documents needed with respect to the requirements under the SBD were available in the tender papers of the petitioner.

¶31

However, while the final decision was being

¶32

taken by the Technical Committee, the bid of the petitioner along with others was rejected on the ground of one of the bid papers being deficient in the group of work at Daudnagar. The petitioner does not grieve on being

¶33

Patna High Court CWJC No.17287 of 2024 dt.12-02-2025 3/4

¶34

non-suited for the work at Daudnagar. However, for a deficiency in the set of papers in one project, the petitioner alleges that he has wrongly been non-suited for the work at Aurangabad. Because of this and only one candidate having remained in the fray, the tender was withdrawn.

¶35

However, the learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that when the deficiency was found in the papers submitted by the petitioner, an opportunity was given to him to explain away the deficiency, which explanation had to be submitted within a period of three days. No effort however was made by the petitioner to explain that it was only with respect to documents in the tender of one of the works that the deficiency was found, which could not have been read or used against the petitioner for the other bid which he had offered.

¶36