IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12669 of 2008 Magadh Manisha Construction Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director Rabindra Prasad Singh son of Late Bhola Singh, resident of LIG-9/299, Hanuman Nagar, Kankarbagh Colony, P.S.-Patrakar Nagar, Town and District-Patna. ……Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Chief Engineer-I, Rural Works Department, Vishveshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Superinteding Engineer, Rural Works Circle, Vetenary College Campus, Sheikhpura, Patna. 5. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Hilsa, Nalanda. 6. Shreekant Prasad son of Harihar Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Mogal Kuan, P.O.-Soh Sarai, P.S.-Soh Sarai, District- Nalanda, Bihar Sharif. 7. Pankaj Engineering Works at 487/1, Peera Chowk, Near Punjab and Sindh Bank, New Delhi-110041. …Respondents. ----------- 05. 23.04.2009 The petitioner responded to notice inviting tender as issued by the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Hilsa, Nalanda on 11.04.2008 in relation to repair and strengthening of Dumri to Salalpur in Hilsa Sub- Division. There were only two tenderers the petitioner and respondent No. 6. Petitioner submits that the Chief Engineer- 1, Rural Works Department acted mala fidely in the matter. He submits that as per tender committee, the tender could be - 2 - given to an experienced person having necessary experience in the matter. Petitioner was an old contractor whereas respondent No. 6 had registered only recently in the year 2008 as a contractor. For mala fide reasons this was ignored. He then submits that the tender notice itself provided that the tender committee would be headed by Superintending Engineer which committee would take decision in the matter. His submission is that the tender committee (Technical Bid Committee) was then constituted in fact of the Secretary (Technical), Rural Works Department, Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department and Chief Engineer-1, Rural Works Department. This admittedly was not a tender committee. Now, the said tender committee decided to disqualify the petitioner. Respondent No. 6 qualified notwithstanding several disqualifications but what is most surprising is the decision of the Technical Bid Committee which is annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. These are proceedings of 27.06.2008. These proceedings clearly show that the Superintending Engineer did not sign the proceedings. What is more curious, it is the Chief Engineer- - 3 - I who then constitutes the majority and signs for himself and signs as Secretary (Technical). Thus in effect three man committee is reduced to one man committee. Therefore, it is the decision of the Chief Engineer-1, all alone. Respondent No. 6 was noticed and repeatedly the case was adjourned. Counter-affidavits were not being filed. This Court took a very strong view in the matter and now respondent No. 6 has appeared and the State has filed a counter-affidavit. I do not wish to go into other controversies but the most surprising thing is that these proceedings of the Technical Bid Committee dated 27.06.2008 which was annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition shows that it is only Chief Engineer who signs at two places in different capacity and the Superintending Engineer does not sign the proceedings. The signature is also of the same date. Now the writ petition is filed on 25.08.2008. Counter-affidavits are now filed in April 2009. The proceedings of the Technical Bid Committee dated 27.06.2008 is annexed by respondent No. 6 who is alleged to favoured by the Chief Engineer. By the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Chief Engineer duly sworn by the Executive Engineer, Works Division - 4 - Hilsa, Nalanda is what surprises the Court. This document as filed by Respondent No.6 and State shows that the Superintending Engineer participated in the said meeting and as also signed the proceedings on the same day though signature was missing in the same as annexed by the petitioner in Annexure-5. This Court asked the petitioner to explain the discrepancy as to why the petitioner has tried to mislead the Court by bringing incomplete document on record on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner immediately in Court produced the information which he had received from the department under Right to Information Act on 18.07.2008, unknown to the Chief Engineer, and this information clearly shows that the Superintending Engineer was not there in the meeting and neither had signed the proceeding. Thus it is clear that it is not the petitioner who tried to mislead to Court but it is respondents, who have tried to mislead the Court by creating false documents. Probably had the authorities known that under Right to Information Act copies had been taken already they would not have tried to make forgeries or interpolation and swear false affidavits. - 5 - In such a situation, I direct the State Cabinet Vigilance Bureau, Kautilya Marg, Patna to take up the investigation immediately and register appropriate proceedings under the Bihar Prevention of Specified Corrupt Practices Act, 1983 against concerned persons and take immediate action in this regard. The Bureau would come to its own findings on basis of materials as produced before it and would submit the report of this Court on 21st May, 2009 before this Court with regard to steps in the matter taken till then. Sri Prabhakar Tekriwal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the petitioner had already made an application for withdrawal of earnest money, during pendency of this writ application and after the stay was obtained petitioner has already received back the earnest money. In my view, he and learned counsel for the respondent rightly states that the petitioner asked for refund of earnest money and having received back and accepted it without demur. However bad the selection may be, in my view the contention is correct that the petitioner having - 6 - accepted the refund of earnest money can not now maintain this writ application. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed except for the purposes of the report which is to be filed by the State Cabinet Vigilance Bureau. Let a copy of this order be immediately sent to the State Cabinet Vigilance Bureau, Kautilya Marg, Patna to Additional Director General of Police immediately. Vikash/- (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)