IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7921 of 2009 MAGADH MANISHA CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, RABINDRA PRASAD SINGH SON OF LATE BHOLA SINGH, LIG 299, HANUMAN NAGAR, P.S. PATRAKAR NAGAR, TOWN AND DISTRICT PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, VISHVESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3. ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, VISHVESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 4. CHIEF ENGINEER-1 RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, VISHVESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 5. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, RURAL WORKS CIRCLE, SHEIKHPURA, PATNA -14. 6. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, WORKS DIVISION, HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA. 7. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, WORKS DIVISIN, PATNA. 8. M/S KUMAR CONSTRUCTION THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SURESH PRASAD SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, HILSA, P.S. HILSA DISTRICT NALANDA. ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha For the State :- Mr. A. Amanullah, S.C. XVII For Respondent no. 8 :- Mr. Pravin Kumar Verma. ------ 5 01/02/2010 Many a things have been stated in the writ application by the petitioner when its technical bid with regard to the contract in question for construction of a road - 2 - from Astha to Chhoti Chheriyari in the district of Nalanda came to be returned to him. His apprehension was based on a background of an earlier writ application which he had filed against the respondents. It was in this background that the Court directed production of the original record of the tender in question. The Court even allowed learned counsel for the petitioner to have a look at the original record to satisfy himself on the propriety of the decision making process. Though learned counsel did try to make some submissions after perusing the records but with due magnanimity he now accepts that the record does not corroborate the hunch which he carried about the decision making process. The reasons for delay in finalisation of tenders are available, one of them being the code of conduct having come in place at the relevant time. It is also a fact that the work had been awarded to respondent no. 8. Respondent no. 8 has appeared and filed counter affidavit to the effect that a substantial amount of work has already been done and even payments have come to be made for the work done by him. - 3 - In view of the same coupled with the observation of this Court in the earlier part of the order with regard to absence of any wrong doing in the decision making process, no case for interference is made out in this writ application. This writ application stands dismissed. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)