IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14265 of 2009 M/S PINTU CONSTRUTION Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Bajrangi Lal, Advocate For the Respondents: AC to AAG-3 ---------- 3 23.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is the second visit of the petitioner before the High Court. His earlier writ application, namely, CWJC No. 11672 of 2009 was disposed of on 10.9.2009 with a direction upon the Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department, to pass an appropriate order within three weeks with regard to the rejection of award of tender for three works which is the subject matter of dispute. Based on the direction of the Hon’ble Court it seems that instead of Engineer-in-Chief, the Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Works, Government of Bihar decided to deal with the objection of the petitioner and so called speaking order dated 29.10.2009 was passed by him which has been brought on record as annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. The reason why the petitioner has come before the High Court a second time is because respondent department has advertised for fresh tender even before the respondent decided his objection. The petitioner submits that there is gross violation of the direction of the Court because retendering ought not to have - 2 - been resorted to before deciding the objection of the petitioner. The retendering has been done on 8.10.2009 and the so called speaking order has been passed on 29.10.2009. He submits that the so called speaking order is only a formality and it has been passed with the object to justifying the retendering. Other submission which has been made at the bar is that annexure-A has been passed without looking into the records of the dispute as well as applying ones mind to the objection and the issues raised by the petitioner. Petitioner in reply to the counter affidavit has brought a few communications issued by the official respondents which are annexures 6, 7 and 8. Aannexure-6 is dated 22.10.2009. This is a letter of the Superintending Engineer recommending to the Chief Engineer, Rural Works Department that the petitioner’s name should be removed from the defaulter list for the reasons in existence. The second letter is dated 27.10.2009 which is annexure-7. This is a letter by Chief Engineer-1 to the Chief Engineer-4 which also certifies that vide departmental letter no. 237 dated 26.10.2009 the petitioner’s name stood expunged or deleted from the defaulter list. Similar is the certification with regard to the above decision in the communication dated 27.10.2009 (annexure-8). In view of the above material brought on record by the petitioner, his simple submission is that there was no occasion thereafter for the Principal Secretary to pass an order of upholding - 3 - the disqualification of the petitioner vide order dated 29.10.2009. He submits that if vide communication dated 26.10.2009 the department had removed him from the defaulter list then obviously the Principal Secretary has missed out on the vital fact by either not looking at the files or the above fact having not been brought to his notice. Existence of annexures- 6, 7 and 8 has not denied by the respondent State. If that be so, then annexure-A dated 29.10.2009 cannot co-exist side by side. The petitioner has made out a case for interference. The order dated 29.10.2009 passed by the Principal Secretary is quashed. So far as the participation of the petitioner in the tender is concerned it is needless to say that no impediment stands in his way in view of the confirmation by annexure-7. So far annexure-5 is concerned which is a tender advertisement dated 8.10.2009 is concerned, the participation of petitioner in the said tender should be considered in normal course if the same has not been finalised. This writ application stands allowed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)