IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16455 of 2009 1. AJAY KUMAR ROY, son of Sri Raghaw Roy, resident of village – Jalalpur, P.O. Bishunpura, Block & P S – Sindhwalia, in the district of Gopalganj. 2. Nirbhay Kumar Pandey son of Sri Amar Kant Pandey, resident of village – Khorampur, P.O. Maharani, P.S. Mohamadpur, Block – Baikunthpur, in the district of Gopalganj. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj. 3. Sub-divisional Education Officer cum District Incharge, MDM Programme Gopalganj. 4. Block Education Officer, Shidhwalia, in the district of Gopalganj. 5. Block Education Officer, Baikunthpur, in the district of Gopalganj. ----------- 03. 12.01.2010 Both the petitioners are aggrieved on the ground of rejection of their tender for transportation and supply of foodgrains of carrying out the mid day meal programme in the district of Gopalganj pursuant to Annexure-1 to the writ application. Submission of the counsel is that the rejection of petitioners` tenders is for extraneous consideration and for oblique reasons and the decision is totally arbitrary and fit to be interfered with. The reason given by the respondents that the declaration or the affidavit did not carry stamp paper of Rs.100, is totally alien to the terms and conditions of annexure-1 and for spacious reason their tenders have been rejected. In the counter affidavit the State has made detailed statement stating therein that the tenders were duly opened in front of a committee of 5-members. Their designations have been indicated in the counter affidavit. A large number of tenderers participated in the said tender and the outcome of the scrutiny of the tender papers have - 2 - been annexed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. They have indicated that names of the two petitioners figured at serial nos. 13 and 16. In the said chart it is categorically recorded that the petitioners had furnished affidavit without their signatures on a stamp of Rs.50/- in support of ownership or availability of vehicles in terms of agreement between the owners and the petitioners. The stand of the respondents is that in terms of clause-1 of the advertisement, the tenderers were obliged to file a copy of the contract (ekrarnama) duly entered between the owners of the vehicles and the tenderers. Both the petitioners have filed affidavit on behalf of vehicle owners and not an agreement and that too without signature of the petitioners on the said affidavit. The petitioners have themselves to blame for failing to qualify in the tender because they have not complied with clause 1 of the advertisement and the respondents were correct in recording that in absence of filing of a copy of the agreement, mere affidavit may not be enough for its consideration. Petitioners have not made out a case for arbitrariness. Therefore, no interference is required in the writ application. It is dismissed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)