IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11076 of 2010 VINAYENDRA NATH UPADHYAYA, son of late Gorakh Nath Upadhyay, resident of village Sareya, P.S. Koranta dih, District- Balia( U.P.)… Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through of District Magistrate, Rohtas 2. The District Magistrate, Rohtas. 3. The Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd., Patna through its Managing Director, Sardar Patel Marg, Patna-15 4. The Managing Director, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd., Sardar Patel Marg, Patna-15. 5. The Secretary, Planning and Administration, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd., Patna-15………. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner:- Mr. Naresh Dixit, Advocate For the Corporation:Mr.Vikas Kumar, Advocate For the State:- Mr.Gyan Shankar, A.C. to S.C. 17. --------- 2. 21.7.2010 The writ application has been filed for quashing the letter dated 25.5.2010 issued by respondent No.5, Secretary, Planning and Administration, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd., by which the petitioner has been informed that the bid offered by the petitioner to the tune of Rs,39,00,000/- for collection of toll tax on Kaw (Narayanpur) Bridge is much less than the reserve price of Rs.77,37,436/- for the period from 1.9.2010 to 31.3.2011 and has directed the petitioner to present himself before respondent No.4 for increasing the highest bid made by him. Learned counsel for the respondent Bihar State Bridge Construction Corporation Ltd. - 2 - submits that the bid of the petitioner is half of the reserve price fixed, yet his bid has not been outright rejected but he being the highest bidder has been called for negotiation giving him an opportunity to raise the bid amount. It is also submitted by him that the petitioner having participated with an open eye being fully aware of the terms and conditions of the tender and the reserve price that has been fixed, it is not open to him to turn around and challenge the same. This Court finds sufficient force in the submissions of learned counsel for the Corporation. In the above circumstances, there being no merit in the writ application, it is, accordingly, dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the representation of the petitioner is pending before the Chairman of the Corporation and he may be directed to dispose of the same. It is, accordingly, directed that the Chairman of the Corporation shall consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner - 3 - within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )