IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.325 of 2011 Om Prakash, son of Late Raghunath Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Mangalgauri, Post-Chandchaura, P.S.- Civil Line, District-Gaya. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Gaya. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Gaya, District-Gaya. 4. The Engineer-in-Chief, Bihar State Highway Division, Public Work Department, Bihar at Patna. 5. The Chief Engineer, Bihar State Highway Division, Public Work Department, South Bihar, Patna. 6. The Superintending Engineer, Bihar State Highway Division, Public Work Department, Gaya Division Gaya. 7. The Executive Engineer, Bihar State Highway Division, Public Work Department, Gaya Division Gaya. ……. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : M/s Mahendra Thakur &Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, A. C. to G. P. 23. -------- 05/ 03.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging Tender Notice no.13/2010-11 to the extent of its serial No.4 only which had been published by the Executive Engineer, Bihar State Highway Division, Pubic Work Department, Gaya Division Gaya in the daily newspaper on 25.12.2010 and also for directing the respondents-authorities to enter into agreement of work contract with the petitioner in terms of earlier Tender Notice No.6/2010-11 published on 15.07.2010 in daily newspaper by the same respondent for construction and decoration of Brahimini Ghat which had been mentioned at serial no.15 of the said notice. - 2 - 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in response to notice dated 15.07.2010 he submitted his tender and since he had National Saving Certificate and also Term Deposit of the Post-Office both of Rs.95,000/-, i.e. 2% of the estimated work on the same day, but the Executive Engineer accepted the term deposit of the Post-Office saying that either is acceptable. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as a rule earnest money is being deposited and accepted in three forms, namely National Saving Certificate, term deposit of Post-Office and Bank Guarantee which is apparent from the subsequent notification dated 20.08.2010 (Annexure-4). Hence, he submits that rejection of petitioner’s tender was not justified as it was on the only basis that earnest money was given as term deposit of post office, although according to notification dated 15.07.2010 he should have filed the National Saving Certificate. He further submits that in the said circumstances, the aforesaid rejection is absolutely illegal and petitioner is still ready to deposit National Saving Certificate which was prepared on the same date. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that tender is submitted by the tenderer in a sealed envelope and hence there is no question of the authority choosing one of the modes of payment of earnest money. He further submits that term deposit of post-office was filed by the petitioner along with his tender in the sealed envelope - 3 - which was not proper as per the notice published in the newspaper published in 15.07.2010 (Annexure-1). 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is quite apparent that the notification issued in Newspaper dated 15.07.2010 (Annexure-1) required that earnest money should be deposited vide National Saving Certificate only. Hence, when in response to the said notice, the petitioner was filing tender he should have produced National Saving Certificate and there was no occasion for the petitioner to file Term Deposit of the Post Office which was not required as per the said notification. 7. So far the subsequent notification is concerned, the tender filed by the petitioner does not concern the subsequent tender notice. It was only with respect to the first notice dated 15.07.2010 which was binding upon the petitioner. The petitioner having not complied the term of the notice, the authorities were quite justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner and issuing a fresh tender. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to take part in subsequent tender as per requirement of the notification. 8. With this observation, this writ petition is disposed of. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)