IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10906 of 2008 ANIL KUMAR SINGH SON OF LATE INDRAJEET SINGH MOHALLA SANTOSHI MAA PATH ROAD NO. 11( C) GAURAKSHANI, P.O. SASARAM, P.S. SASARAM, DISTRICT ROHTAS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF, RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER I RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, SASARAM CIRCLE, SASARAM, ROHTAS. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, SASARAM DIVISION, ROHTAS. ----------- 3 26/04/2010 From the allegations made in the writ application it was sought to be established that the rejection of technical bid of the petitioner was for other reasons and for extraneous consideration. That was with regard to the notice inviting tender for the year 2007-08. Learned counsel for the State in the counter affidavit has denied any wrong doing. Their stand is that the envelope of the technical bid did not contain necessary evidence and proof of machineries etc. In absence of the same the technical bid was rejected and the financial bid envelope returned. - 2 - Without going into the merits of the allegation, the fact also stands that the work in question has come to be assigned and may be completed thereafter. In that view of the matter, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. If the petitioner is serious about his allegation and manipulation, he has remedy under law before other forum to which he can take recourse to. Allegation of this kind cannot be adjudicated in this writ application, more so at such a belated stage. This writ application is thus dismissed. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)