IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16157 of 2008 RAJEEV KUMAR CHOUDHARY S/O LATE BINOD NARAYAN CHOUDHARY, R/O MOHALLA- SATPURA, PS-QUAZI MOHAMMADPUR, DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR---PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CHIEF SECY. STATE OF BIHAR OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECY, BUILD.CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT (PWD) BISHESHWARAIYA BHAWAN 15 BAILY ROAD,PATNA 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, BUILD.CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT (PWD) BISHESHWARAIYA BHAWAN 15 BAILY ROAD, PATNA 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DIVISION (PWD)MUZAFFARPUR PS- DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR-- RESPONDENTS ----------- 3 11.5.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner was one of the tenderers with regard to the notice inviting tender issued in the year 2008. The work was for construction of P.G. Department and Hostel of fifty beds of what is known as R.B.T.S. Government Homeopathic Medical College, Muzaffarpur. For a long time no decision was taken with regard to the tender nor was the petitioner informed about the outcome of the said exercise and suddenly re-advertisement for fresh tender has been issued which is under challenge in the present writ application. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was never informed whether his tender was accepted or rejected. No explanation or reason for re-advertising the tender has been assigned that too without declaring the status of the earlier tender. The petitioner is aggrieved by such act of the respondents. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein statement has been made that the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that registration of - 2 - the petitioner with the department was in individual capacity and not of firm and the tender had to be filed on behalf of a firm and not in individual capacity. If that was the only ground then the outcome of the said decision ought to have been conveyed to the petitioner when his technical bid was rejected. Keeping silent on the issue and going for re-advertisement only makes the things more suspicious. The reason having been furnished now in the counter affidavit seems to be cogent. The re-advertisement has been made in the background stated and indicated above. The same cannot be interfered with at this stage. The contention of the petitioner that he had deposited NSC worth Rs. 2, 75,000/- along with the tender and it has not been returned. The respondent authority i. e. the Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department (PWD), Muzaffarpur is hereby directed to refund the security and the NSC within six weeks from the date of production or communication of the a copy of this order. This writ application stands disposed of with the above direction. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)