IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8504 of 2009 RAGHVENDRA KUMAR RAI, son of Sri Babban Rai, resident of village – Kritpura, P O – Kamarpur, District – Buxar. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The District Magistrate, District – Buxar. 3. District Education Officer, Buxar. 4. Area Education Officer cum Incharge, Mid Day Meal, District – Buxar. 5. Pankaj Kumar Rai, son of late Bindhyachal Rai, resident of village – Kritpura, P O – Kamarpur, District – Buxar. ----------- 05. 29.01.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, private respondent and learned counsel for the State. Award of contract for distribution of rice block- wise under the Mid Day Meal Scheme in the district of Buxar became a subject matter of challenge in the present writ application. The advertisement in question is dated 12.6.2009. The contract has been awarded and the validity of the same is going to come on end on 31st March, 2010. The stand of the petitioner is that award of tender and the terms and conditions go beyond the tender notice published on 12.6.2009. Selection made was in arbitrary fashion and there has been wrong doing on the part of respondent authorities as they have picked up their favorites in the award of the contract. In the light of such submission counsel for the State was directed not only to file a counter affidavit but also a supplementary counter affidavit duly sworn by the District Education Officer for some of the allegations made in the writ 2 application. From perusal of the material which has been brought on record not only by way of pleadings but supplemented by various official documents it emerges that the allegation is more made than made out. After the award of the contract many hue and cry has been raised. Detailed enquiry was held and the necessary outcome of the same communicated to the District Magistrate, Buxar has also been brought on record. Every point of objection stands duly clarified and responded to, which would be evident from Annexure- E and G to the supplementary affidavit. There is yet another aspect of the matter where much emphasis has been placed that furnishing of PAN card was not necessary in terms of the advertisement and the subsequent direction of the nodal department making it compulsory for all the bidders to provide PAN card cannot be adhered to because notice inviting tender cannot be expanded. On this aspect counsel for the State informs the court that the communication in this regard was received by the authorities well in time. This fact was duly communicated to one and all. Chart contained in annexure-2 itself will show that majority of the tenderers had furnished their PAN cards and furnishing of PAN cards cannot be called arbitrary as even in the opinion of the Court any citizen who wants to enter into contract must be atleast an income tax payee having some means and standing in the society. It is unimaginable that the kind of contract which was to be awarded can be claimed by a person who is not income tax payee. The insistence and 3 requirement for furnishing PAN card cannot be termed to be arbitrary in any manner. It is a case where the petitioner has unnecessarily wreaked up issue after having failed to get the contract in his favour. No case for interference is made out. The writ application is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J )