IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.8988 OF 2009 M/S DEO CONSTRUCTION, AURANGABAD VERSUS (1) THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT (2) ENGINEER IN CHIEF , GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR (3) THE CHIEF ENGINEER I, RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT , GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR (4) THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER MAGADH CIRCLE RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT GAYA (5) THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WORKS DIVISION, RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT GAYA ----------- 3. 18.08.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the private respondent and the State. In the instant writ petition, petitioner prays for quashing order vide letter no. 1874 dated 14.7.2009, annexure 4, issued by Chief Engineer, respondent no.3, whereby he has been declared unsuccessful in the technical bid of tender for construction of road between Morhar to Kajri, advertised in notice no. 25/2008-09. It would appear from annexure- 4 that petitioner has been declared unfit for taking part in tender on account of letter of the Secretary bearing no. 3996 dated 9.6.2009 as well as letter no.2310 dated 2.7.2009 issued by Road Construction Department. It is relevant to notice here that office of Chief Engineer cum Addl Commissioner cum Special Secretary, Road Construction Department circulated a list of defaulter contractors contained in annexure 3 dated 2.7.2009 containing petitioner’s name at serial no. 89 who were restrained from participating in future tenders till the completion of work entrusted to them earlier which had been challenged by him vide C.W.J.C.No. 8303/09. This court under dated 20.7.2009 observed that ‘ in the meantime, the clauses restraining the petitioner from participating in future tender will remain stayed’. - 2 - It appears that pursuant to annexure 3, petitioner’s technical bid was returned to him vide annexure 4 dated 14.7.2009 which is prior to passing of order of this court in writ petition i.e. 20.7.2009. Furthermore, the work in question has already been allotted to the intervener, namely, Birendra Kumar Tiwari vide letter dated 20.7.2009 of Chief Engineer, Rural Works Department, Patna though this court under order dated 3.8.2009 had directed to restrain officials from passing final order finalizing the tender in question. It appears that the agreement in question was finalized prior this direction. In that view of the matter, the writ petition has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J).