IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4164 of 2009 PRAMOD SINGH, son of Sri. Shankar Dayal Singh, resident of Village- Kamat, P.O.-War, District-Aurangabad(Bihar) …….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Chief Engineer, Rural Works Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. Executive Engineer, Department of Rural Wroks Department, Work Divison, Aurangabad. 5. M/S-Deo Construction, G.T.Road, Aurangabad. ……..Respondents. With CWJC No. 4530 of 2009 PRAMOD SINGH, son of Sri. Shankar Dayal Singh, resident of Village- Kamat, P.O.-War, District-Aurangabad(Bihar) …….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Chief Engineer, Rural Works Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. Executive Engineer, Department of Rural Works Department, Work Divison, Aurangabad. 5. M/S-Deo Construction, G.T.Road, Aurangabad. ……..Respondents. --------- 04. 28.04.2009 Petitioner had applied in pursuant to notice inviting tender for repair and extension of road under Rural Works Department, Work Division, Aurangabad. One of the conditions was that the tenderers must have their own equipment or they must gave undertaking from another contractor to make available their equipments like Hot Mix plant etc for the concerned 2 work. Petitioner filed his tender and undisputedly along with his technical bid he gave a certificate from M/S- Shakti Construction who expressed their willingness to give Hot Mix plant and other equipments to the petitioner. When technical bids were opened immediately enquiry was made with regard to the works that were to be executed by the said M/S-Shakti Construction. The report was immediately submitted that it had two subsisting contracts which it was already executed in which Hot Mix plant etc were to be extensively used. Apparently the authorities took a view that in such a situation it could not be expected that the petitioner would have the availability of the said Hot Mix plant and other equipments and accordingly the authorities found that the petitioner was not technically qualified to be considered for the tender in question. Petitioner challenges these actions. Petitioner submits that it is curious and surprising that how on 17.02.2009, the technical bids were opened, enquiry reports called for and submitted and decision taken. But he is not in a position to deny the facts as noted in the enquiry reports. That being so, this Court not been an appellate authority over that decision of the technical committee can not interfere with its decision on these 3 matters. The decision neither being perversed nor so grossly unreasonable which can not be interfered. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)