IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1894 of 2008 NAND KUMAR SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 05 29.07.2008 The petitioner representing his principal had responded to a tender being tender no. PR 1846 of the year 2006-07, for supply of certain soil testing machine in seven districts of Bihar. The said tender was accepted. While, petitioner completed supplies, so far as three districts were concerned and were making supplies for remaining four districts a fresh tender was issued being tender no. IPRD 5122 of the year 2007-08, this was for five districts, which inter alia included two districts for which petitioner had already got the earlier tender. However, petitioner again participated and filed its technical and financial bid. Its technical bid was rejected on the ground that it was not properly wax sealed. Which decision was subsequently overruled by the Special Secretary, Government of Bihar, thereafter, his technical bid was opened and thereafter - 2 - financial bid was opened and rejected on the ground that the technical bid did not have proper wax sealing. The petitioner came to this Court challenging the rejection of his financial bid and with a prayer of finalizing the said tender. During pendency of this writ petition the Director of Agriculture cancelled the tender in toto that is tender no. 5122 of the year 2007-08 and issued a fresh tender that is the third tender being tender no. 8418 of 2007- 08. Though, petitioner did not participate in the said tender. Petitioner’s principal participated and lost out because of marginal rate itself. Principal of the petitioner had not chosen to challenge their loss. But, petitioner submits that he has the authority to challenge the same on behalf of principal. For the sake of argument, the Court takes that the identity of the petitioner and the principal be the same, the consequence is that notwithstanding the pendency of the writ petition when the second tender was cancelled and a third issued petitioner would be deemed - 3 - to have participated therein having participated and lost, in my view, precluded from the challenge. The same that brings to the end to the whole history. The writ petition merits no consideration and is dismissed, as such. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.)