IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15207 of 2010 MITHILESH KUMAR SINGH S/O SURENDRA NARAYAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BELSANDI, P.S.- NARPATGANJ, DISTRICT- ARARIA. …………… PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2.BIHAR STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, B-2, FIRST FLOOR, MAURYA LOK CAMPUS, PATNA. 3.THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, B-2, FIRST FLOOR, MAURYA LOK CAMPUS, PATNA. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr.M.P.Gupta,Advocate. Mr.Brajesh Kumar,Advocate. For Corporation : Mr.Naresh Dixit, Advocate. For the State : Mr.Ravi Verma, Advocate. 2 15.9.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Corporation. The petitioner seeks quashing of the letter dated 30.7.2010 (Annexure-6) issued by the Managing Director, Bihar State Warehousing Corporation, by which he alleges that certain changes have been made in the technical qualifications for registration as transportation agent. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he had participated on the basis of the public notice dated 2.12.2006 issued by the respondent Corporation for registration of contractors as transportation agent and having been found duly qualified by letter dated 20.11.2007 he was registered as transportation agent on provisional basis from the date of issue of the letter. The work of the petitioner having been found to be satisfactory the registration was extended from time to time and lastly the same was extended by 2 letter dated 28.5.2010, contained in Annexure-5, further for the period of six months. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that within the period of last extension a letter dated 30.7.2010 has been issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation, in which certain changes have been made in the technical qualifications and the minimum required qualifications and it has been stated that if the same are not fulfilled then he will not be considered for the work and he will not be permitted to participate in any tender in the future. As per learned counsel the qualifications of the petitioner cannot be considered in terms of certain new criteria fixed by the letter dated 30.7.2010 which is not exactly on the same terms as the conditions fixed by the notice dated 2.12.2006 (Annexure-1). Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that there is no major variation in the conditions prescribed for the minimum technical qualifications prescribed by the letter dated 30.7.2010 by the Managing Director. He further submits that so far as the last extended period for which the petitioner was duly registered there is no intention of the Corporation to interfere with that unless it is found that the petitioner does not fulfill the qualifications as prescribed by the notice dated 2.12.2006 (Annexure-1) under which he has been selected but so far as participation in any future tender is concerned he must possess the qualifications as required by the letter dated 30.8.2010. The aforesaid stand of learned counsel for the Corporation appears to be quite fair and this Court does not think that the petitioner can take any objection with respect to the same. 3 The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the direction that the petitioner shall not be disturbed in performing the work of transportation extended by the letter dated 28.5.2010 provided his work continues to be satisfactory and he continues to have the technical qualifications as mentioned in the notice dated 2.12.2006. However, for participation in any future tender process the petitioner would be obliged to have the necessary qualifications as prescribed by letter dated 30.7.2010 or any other direction that may be issued in this regard by the respondent authorities. AnilKr.Sinha ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)