IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2247 of 2009 SHANKAR KUMAR, President, Indus Creative Vision, son of Sri Panchu Prasad Yadav, resident of Mohalla – Shivpuri, Ward No. 13, District – Saharsa. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. District Magistrate, Saharsa. 3. Deputy Development Commissioner, Saharsa cum President, Purchase Committee, Saharsa. 4. District Welfare Officer, Saharsa. 5. Programme Officer (Child Development) cum Member, Purchase Committee, Welfare Department, Saharsa. 6. Shiv Kumar Yadav, son of late Jagdambi Yadav, resident of Village - & Post: Amarpur, P.S. Sonbarsa Katcheri, District – Saharsa. ----------- 03. 11.11.2009 A tender was called by the Welfare Department for operating a mess of what is known as Ambedkar Residential High School, Amarpur (Saharsa). Many persons participated and petitioner claims himself to be the lowest tenderer. The tender was issued in the light of the policy of the State Government enumerated in the communication contained in annexure-1 dated 27.5.2008. Petitioner alleges that despite him being the lowest tenderer, on the date of opening of tender in midst of persons who were present, an open bid was resorted to and the work came to be awarded to respondent No.6 namely, Shiv Kumar Yadav. Annexure-5 is the order by virtue of which the work came to be awarded in favour of the private respondent. Submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that this novel procedure adopted is contrary to the advertisement and the terms laid down, which is not permissible under law. Learned counsel for the State has filed a counter affidavit - 2 - and has not denied the above facts but has taken stand that the petitioner also participated in the said open auction and now has turned around to challenge the said award of running the mess. Participation of the petitioner in the novel procedure adopted will not take away the attention of the Court from the primary fact that when a notice inviting tender is issued and terms and conditions are laid down therein, same cannot be given a goby in the middle of the process and a different procedure be adopted for award of work even if the object for the same is to generate some competition amongst the bidders. Obviously the respondent authorities have been over enthusiastic and have not understood the parameters of law in matters of award of tender. From annexure-1 it is evident that these tenders are to be made for one academic year at a time. If that be so, then since the last tender was awarded on 14.11.2008, the academic year must have come to an end or must be nearing the end. It is hereby clarified that once the academic year comes to an end, respondent authorities would be obliged to make a re-tender and go by with the terms and conditions of the tender and not commit breach of the terms and conditions of the tender. The writ application is disposed of with the above observation. Respondent authorities are cautioned to be more careful in future in committing such breach in award of tenders. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)