IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2859 of 2010 1. S.G.PROJECTS LIMITED HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 613, JASMINE TOWER, 31, SHAKESPEARE SARANI, KOLKATTA 700017 THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR NAMELY SURESH SINGH Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, (SOUTH, CIRCLE) MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE COMMISSIONER, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, BHOJPUR 7. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, SARAN 8. THE COLLECTOR, PATNA 9. THE COLLECTOR, BHOJPUR 10. THE COLLECTOR, SARAN 11. THE MINES INSPECTOR, DISTRICT MINES OFFICE, PATNA 12. THE MINES INSPECTOR, DISTRICT MINES OFFICE, SARAN 13. THE MINES INSPECTOR, DISTRICT MINES OFFICE, BHOJPUR 14. BRODSON COMODITIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, HIMANSHU COMPLEX, KOILWAR, P.S. KOILWAR DISTT.- BHOJPUR THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SRI MITHILESH KUMAR SINGH ----------- 2/ 02/05/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. On the own showing of the petitioner from the pleadings in the writ petition the tender document submitted by him was incomplete and came to be rejected on that ground. This aspect has been noticed by the Apex Court in (2007) 14 SCC 517 (Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa) holding at paragraph 24 as follows:- “24. …..Therefore, the Committee concluded that the tender of the fifth respondent was defective as not being accompanied by a valid EMD. It cannot be said that the Committee acted unreasonably 2 and arbitrary, in arriving at the said decision. ….” The Court finds no infirmity with the same calling for interference. The writ application stands dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)