IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.928 of 2010 1. AYODHYA UPADHYAYA S/O SRI SARYU UPADHYAYA R/O VILL +P.O.ATHAR, P.S.NAWANAGAR, DISTT-BUXAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR , THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF -CUM-ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER -CUM -SPECIAL SECRETARY ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER , SOUTH BIHAR ,(UB), ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER , ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT BHOJPUR ROAD CIRCLE , ARA 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER , ROAD DIVISION BUXAR ----------- 04. 22.02.2010 The Court restrains itself from recording all the ramifications of the dispute raised in the present writ application lest it comes in the way of a decision which may be required to be made by the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department. The dispute is with regard to construction/repair of culverts and small bridges on Dumaron – Bikramganj Road located at Km. 17, 18 and 20. One Ideal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. was found not to have qualified in the technical bid specially the mandatory requirements needed in this regard. Petitioner was the second lowest bidder but it is his assertion that the Executive Engineer is not willing to award work in his favour for many a reasons. Why the respondents are hell-bent on re-tendering the work for second or third time could not be understood from the 2 pleadings and materials on record. Learned Additional Advocate General – XI was granted time to seek instruction and file counter affidavit. He informs the Court that still he does not have the required inputs to successfully defend the writ application. The details furnished to him is sketchy and unapproved. He, however, submits that since the decision contained in Annexure-12 dated 31.12.2009 is by the Special Secretary, respondent No.2, therefore, matter can now be looked into by the Principal Secretary of the Department. If the petitioner brings all these facts to the notice of the Principal Secretary, respondent no.1, appropriate decision may be taken at his level. Looking at the nature of the work there is some kind of urgency required in the matter and the issue must be resolved so that the people using the said road are not inconvenienced because of on going dispute raised by the petitioner. The writ application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner that he shall file his claim before the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department (Respondent No.1) within a week and the Principal Secretary is expected to take a decision after due inputs within another four weeks of filing of the application by the petitioner. If the outcome of the decision does not satisfy the petitioner he has remedy. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J )