IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11102 of 2010 Dinesh Kumar Singh, S/O Late Ramabatar Singh, Vill- Barahia, P.S.-Barahia, Distt-Lakhisarai. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Visheshraiya Bhawan, Patna 2. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Visheshraiya Bhawan, Patna 3. The Engineer-In-Chief, Road Construction Department, Visheshraiya Bhawan, Patna 4. The Chief Engineer, South Bihar, Communication Wing, Road Construction Department, Visheshraiya Bhawan , Patna 5. The Superintending Engineer, East Bihar Circle, Road Construction Department, Adampur Chouk, Bhagalpur 6. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department , Road Division, Lakhisarai 7. Ram Niwas Kumar, S/O Sri Ram Narayan Singh, R/o Vill - Bahdarpur, P.O.Rampur (Matihani)Distt-Begusarai. For the petitioner : Mr. Jai Prakash Verma, Advocate. For the State : Mr. P.K.Verma, A.A.G.-V and Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, A.C. to A.A.G.-V. ----------- 5. 04.01.2011 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State of Bihar. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondent authorities to cancel the work awarded to Respondent no. 7 on 28.06.2010 (Annexure-9) in respect of construction of proposed office building of Road Construction Department, Lakhisarai under Non-Plan Head No. 3054 and also to direct the respondent authorities to award the said work to the petitioner as the petitioner’s tender was found to be fit among three tenderers including Respondent no. 7 and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the 2 notings for Cost Bid Approval (Annexure-5) of the Superintending Engineer and Executive Engineer in which it had been noted that the papers of Respondent no. 7 were not found to be in order because Income Tax Certificate and Sales Tax Certificate were not found on e-Tendering site, although it was compulsory in view of the advertisement dated 04.04.2010 (Annexure-2). Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the guidelines issued by the Road Construction Department dated 09.04.2010 (Annwcure-10) in which it has been specifically mentioned that with respect to e-Tendering, no claim shall be entertained on account of disruption of internet service being used by bidders and the bidders are advised to upload their bids well in advance to avoid last minute technical snags. Hence, he submits that the bid of respondent no. 7 should have been rejected by the authorities and since the petitioner was the second lowest bidder and his papers were also complete, he should have been given the work as per the recommendation and notings of the Executive Engineer, which is apparent from Annexure-5 itself. 4. From the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that bid was legally held in which Respondent no. 7 was the lowest bidder, the petitioner was the second lowest bidder and another bidder Navin Kumar was the third. After the bid the estimator of the Road Construction Department, Lakhisarai had given his notings (Annexure-4) stating that from e-net Sales Tax 3 and Income Tax Certificate (PAN Card) of Mr. Ramniwas Kumar was not down loaded as the attached file was found to be corrupted. It is also quite apparent from the acknowledgement of tender submission of e-Tendering Site that actually Respondent no. 7 had up-loaded the sales tax and income tax papers on e- Tendering Site, but because of some technical problems, it could not be down loaded. It has been specifically stated in paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit that because of e-tendering his papers were not down loaded and he was asked to submit the same in person whereafter he duly submitted the sales tax and income tax certificates on 2.06.2010. 5. In the said circumstances, when the respondents had up-loaded the sales tax and income tax papers of e-Tendering Site, but it could not be down loaded by the authorities due to technical problem, but on the direction of the authorities, Respondent no. 7 immediately produced the same, hence there was no occasion for the authorities to reject his claim and allot the work to the second lowest bidder namely the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. Sujit (S.N.Hussain,J.)