IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7274 of 2009 RADHA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3 9.7.2009 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner prays for quashing the letter No.818 dated 17.5.2009 published in Hindi daily Dainik Jagaran dated 22.5.2009 by which the subsequent and fresh Tender has been issued by the respondent no.5 for repairing of the banks of the Gangapur sub- distributory from R.D. 86.10 to 109.00 superseding the earlier tender which was invited vide N.I.T.No.1/year 2009 – 09 issued on 5.2.2009 pursuant to which the work was to be completed by 31.5.2009. The case of the petitioner is that she had submitted her tender papers and finding her eligibility in the Technical bid the respondent Chief Engineer had called her on eve of opening of the financial bid on 13.5.2009. However without assigning any reason the said tender was cancelled due to ulterior motive to provide undue favor to some other contractor. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 14.5.2009 the Chief Engineer directed the Executive Engineer to return the financial bid vide letter dated 15.5.2009. Pursuant to the direction of the Chief Engineer, the Executive Engineer issued letter dated 15.5.2009 stating therein that as the tender submitted by the petitioner did not conform to terms and conditions and as such her tender regarding the work mentioned at serial no.25 has been cancelled. Learned counsel further submits that the action of the - 2 - respondent in cancelling the same is arbitrary and unreasonable. The petitioner made representation on 26.5.2009 before the respondent no.4 for cancelling the subsequent tender notice dated 22.5.2009 and a copy of the same was also given to the Secretary of the Department. It is stated in para 11 that the Secretary of the Department ordered an enquiry. Learned counsel submitted that during the intervening period a fresh tender has been floated. He submits that fresh tender ought not to have been introduced during the pendency of the enquiry. He submits that if the enquiry officer would find that the earlier tender namely, N.I.T. No.1/year 2008-09 was wrongly cancelled the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties this Court is of the view that it would be open to the petitioner to represent to Principal Secretary Department of Water Resources, that pending enquiry the subsequent tender may be kept in abeyance and on receipt of such representation the respondent no.1 would pass an appropriate order within 10 days of the receipt of the same. It would also be open to the petitioner to participate in the subsequent bid and earnest money deposited in respect of the first tender would be adjusted towards the subsequent tender. With the aforesaid observation this writ application is disposed of. Anilkr.sinha (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)