IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7075 of 2009 GAYA SINGH, aged about 55 years, son of late Mungeshwar Singh, resident of Village – Bara, Police Station – Modanpur, District - Aurangabad Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principals Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Gaya. 6. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. 7. The Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Aurangabad. ----------- 04. 08.01.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is that pursuant to an earlier advertisement which was a notice inviting tender published in the local newspaper on 1.12.2008, steps were taken by the various bidders. Even a date was fixed on 17.3.2009 to open the technical bid and thereafter the financial bid but a few days prior to the same the decision to open the bids was deferred. Nothing was heard from the respondents on the issue and then a new tender notice came to be published vide annexure-6 dated 1.4.2009. Petitioner cries foul and submits that the whole process was set to naught which was initiated on the basis of annexure-1 only to accommodate such contractors who had high volume of work in their hand and had turn over matching - 2 - the second tender. Counsel representing the State has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that before the finalization of the tender the higher authorities received many a complaints in the manner in which first notice inviting tender was published and the eagerness at the local level to finalise the tender without taking into consideration the stipulations and conditions which are laid down under the PWD Code. The matter was looked into at the highest level and finding the allegations and complaints to be in order the earlier notice inviting tender and process of finalization came to be deferred. Fresh notice inviting tender has been issued in terms of annexure-6 which is not disputed. There was cogent and valid reasons for the respondents to act in the manner in which they have acted. It is further submitted that the re-tendering was done way back in April, 2009 and now it has been finalized as well and work awarded to the successful bidder. In absence of any clear pleadings or any material having been brought in support of the submissions made in favour of the petitioner, the Court is not inclined to certify the allegations made by the petitioner or the reasons for the re- tendering. The reason for fresh tender seems to be based on an exercise carried out by the respondents for the reasons reflected in the earlier part of he order. Another aspect which may also be recorded is that merely because re-tender had been issued - 3 - the petioner was in no manner barred or was barred in participation of the same. No case for interference is made out. The writ application is dismissed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)