IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.125 of 2007 NAV DURGA TOP TECH PVT.LTD. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5 23.07.2008 The petitioner had responded to a tender issued by the State of Bihar for setting up exploratory programme for issuance of driving license etc. in digital format. Parties were aware that this was not a final contract being given because they had to set up and try may programmes etc. and then after the State accepted the technical and other performance parameters the State is to take a final decision in the matter. Five persons responded, but ultimately petitioner alone was left and was allotted the exploratory work. Work started, various problems arose and consultation at different levels was carried out. Ultimately, State entrusted the matter to the Member, Board of Revenue, and Government of Bihar for ascertaining the details and evaluating the matter. Member, Board of Revenue examined various aspects and made the final recommendation stating that the order to be scrapped and terminate the present working and restart the whole thing again after doing proper and necessary spade work in the matter. This policy recommendation appears to have been accepted by the State Government and they have cancelled the order given in favour of the writ petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, writ application has been filed. Shri S.A. Narain, Senior Counsel in support of writ application has submitted first that the order canceling the work in 2 favour of the petitioner is a non-speaking order and no reasons are ascribed and therefore it is bad. He then submits that whatever reasons are sought to be supplemented by way of counter affidavit can not be looked into in view of the case of M. S. Gill Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, reported in AIR 1978 SC 851. He then submitted that once an enquiry had been entrusted to Member, Board of Revenue, before he recommended for cancellation of the work order in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner was entitled to be heard and to participate in the inquiry. The premise of the submission is that the respondents were functioning in public law domain and that being so the norms of fairness and reasonableness as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution would apply to every aspect of their action. In my view, the general proposition, as propounded, could not be discarded. It is well established that whenever the executive is acting in public law domain all actions must necessarily conform to the constitution and norms contained therein. But the same, in my view, will have no application in the present case. The petitioner was not bestowed with any contract to his knowledge. It was mere exploratory work which was being done for a permanent establishment to be set up and the exploratory work was with regard to feasibility of technology and other requirements. It was not a pre- contractual stage rather it was a stage even prior to that. Government reviewed the matter as a matter of policy and sought recommendations of the Member, Board of Revenue. These were 3 policy decisions which the government was to take and it is for that purpose that it sought the advice of its senior officers. This is not Public Law Domain exercise of administrative power. It is an ipso facto policy development standard, to which petitioner may not be a party. This is a part of policy formation being exercised by the government itself at a pre-contractual stage and cannot be interfered by this court in any manner except where ultimate policy is shown to be violative of any constitutional provision. In the result, this writ application, merits no consideration and is dismissed accordingly. Mkr. (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)