IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 8672 of 2008 SUNIL PRASAD SINGH Versus BIHAR STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION & ORS ----------- 3 29.07.2008 The petitioner had responded to a notice inviting tender for establishment of a godown for storing liquor by the Bihar State Beverages Corporation. His tender was accepted. One of the important conditions of tender was that the godown must have parking space of three to four trucks and an easy egress and digress. Petitioner responded and his tender was provisionally accepted subject to various modifications being made and compliance thereof. Petitioner, accordingly, asserts that he spent substantial amount of money in modifying the premises to satisfy the requirement and then submitted the plan for the entire area and, thereafter, a compliance report was submitted by the Depot Manager of the Corporation. The Corporation, instead of finalizing the tender with the petitioner, cancelled the tender and readvertised the same. Petitioner submits that it is to favour a particular person, who had not tendered, that all this is being done. A counter affidavit has been filed in which it was being sought to be conveyed that as the godowns were to store liquor, they were subject to approval of the Collector and the Superintendent of State Excise. To this, this Court cannot accept because there is no such condition either in the notice inviting tender or subsequently provisional acceptance. However, a report of the Excise Superintendent has been annexed which points out that, on inspection, it was found that the 2 approach to the godown was thin and would not permit two trucks to move simultaneously. It further pointed out that there was inadequate space for the trucks to go inside the godown and lastly three to four trucks could not be parked in the godown space. In the review meeting where report of petitioner’s compliance was submitted, it appears a decision to cancel and readvertise was taken. The report sent by the Depot Manager of the Corporation is also on record and a perusal thereof would show that the total parking space available is 40 feet x 39 feet and the approach road of about 67 feet was only 16 feet wide. In view of the dimensions aforesaid, it cannot be said that the objection, as raised by the Excise Department, was without any foundation. This is also apparent from the plan which has been annexed by the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court cannot intervene in the matter even though it is on the assurance of the respondent- Corporation that petitioner invested the huge amount in renovation etc as per their direction. Whether a premises is suitable for use or not is for a party to decide? The petitioner, if so advised, may bring a civil action for damages but certainly the writ petition does not deserve consideration. It is, accordingly, dismissed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)