IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7838 of 2009 M/S AJAY ENGICON PVT.LTD. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3 28.7.2009 This court by order dated 13.7.2009 had restraint the respondents from taking any subsequent action against the petitioner pursuant to the letter dated 30.5.2009 as contained in Annexure-10. Mr. P.K.Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents seeks some more time to file counter affidavit. He submits that on 28.12.2008 the petitioner had given an undertaking before the Executive Engineer, Respondent no.5, that he will complete the work by March, 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cost of the work has arisen by more than Rs.2 crores in revised estimates as would be evident from Annexure-2 which has also been signed by the Assistant Engineer, Road Construction Division No.2, Aurangabad and the Executive Engineer, R.C.D. Road No.1, Aurangabad wherein the total estimated cost has been shown as Rs.8,96,58,000.00 as against the earlier estimate of about Rs.6 crores. Thereafter, it would appear from the letter no.593 dated 20.2.2008 which has been written by the Chief Engineer, South Bihar, Patna addressed to the Engineer-in-Chief cum Additional Secretary cum Special Secretary, R.C.D.,Patna stating that on scrutiny and verification the revised estimate has been put around Rs.933.94 lacs as against the approved amount of Rs.6,15,72,000/-. 2 KHAN Though technical sanction of the aforesaid amount was awarded, the same has been forwarded to respondent no.3 for taking steps for administrative approval The petitioner submits that he has done substantial work in respect of the earlier estimate and some work also in respect of the revised estimate. He further submits that a bill of Rs.52 lacs for the work already done by it is due. In this respect, the petitioner has represented by its letter dated 28.5.2009, as contained in Annexure- 9, before the Executive Engineer, R.C.D.No.1, Aurangabad. The petitioner submits that in his aforesaid letter he had sought for an assurance from the respondents that they would pay the bill as per the revised estimate also as there has been no administrative sanction of the same as yet. Having heard counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that the Executive Engineer, R.C.D. Road No.1, Aurangabad would dispose of the aforesaid representation of the petitioner by a reasoned order and will also get the work done by the petitioner calculated. Further more the respondents would not restrain the petitioner from participating in the tender which will be decided on its own merits. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. (S.P.Singh,J)