IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4187 of 2011 M/S P.PRAKASH CONSTRUCTION, LALDARWAZA, MUNGER, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM THROUGH ONE OF ITS PARTNER SULOCHANA TIWARY WIFE OF KAILASH PD. TIWARY RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-LALDARWAZA, P.S. DISTRICT-MUNGER. ….PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER(TRAFFIC), SOUTH BIHAR WING, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, EAST BIHAR CIRCLE, BHAGALPUR. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, ROAD DIVISION, MUNGER. 5. M/S NIRAJAN SHARMA, BELON BAZAR, MUNGER PARTNERSHIP FIRM THROUGH ITS PARTNER NIRANJAN SHARMA. …..RESPONDENT. For the Petitioner : Mr. Raj Kishore Pd., Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. A. Amanullah, GA.4. ----------- 07. 12.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondents not to allot the tender issued by the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Munger (respondentn no. 4) vide his memo no. 862 dated 04.08.2010 in favour of the private respondent M/s Niranjan Sharma (respondent no. 5) as he has already been debarred from participating in any future tender on account of non completion of work under Mukhya Mantri Nagar Vikash Yojana, the tender paper itself being issued to him in complete violation of the order of debarment, and further for directing the respondents to decide the tenders after following the due process 2 of law in favour of competent contractors who are eligible to participate in the tender. 3. The contention between the parties is with regard to debarment of M/s Niranjan Sharma (respondent no.5). Learned counsel for the respondents submits that vide letter dated 31.07.2009 (Annexure-2) issued by the Rural Works Department several firms were debarred, a list of which was attached to the said letter in which respondent contractor M/s Niranjan Sharma, Belan Bazar Munger having new registration no. 188 of 1999 was also one of them. Hence, he submits that when the said respondent was debarred there was no occasion for allotting the tender to it. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the terms and conditions of notices inviting tender (Annexure-A) had to be fulfilled by the candidate, clause 21 of which provides that the tenderer should give details of the works done by him for the last three years. He, thus, submits that the firm of the private respondent having been registered in the year 2009 it had clearly did not have three years experience and hence he was not entitled to grant of tender on that score also. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent authorities who had filed the counter affidavit stated that M/s Niranjan Sharma, Belan Bazar Munger is a firm of seven partners having registration no. 150 of 2008 and it was neither debarred nor blacklisted even by the authorities concerned and it was eligible to participate in the tender and 3 hence tender paper was rightly issued to the said firm. 6. From the arguments of the parties as well as from the materials on record it is quite apparent that the emphasis of the petitioner is on letter dated 30.07.2009 (Annexure-2) issued by the Rural Works Department but the said letter does not show that the list of firms thereto, including M/s Niranjan Sharma, (registration no. 188 of 1999), had been debarred rather it was a mere opinion that the said firms can be debarred from taking part in the tender. 7. Further-more, from the said letter dated 31.07.2009 (Annedure-2) of the Rural Works Department as well as the statement made by the respondent authorities in their counter affidavit it is quite apparent that there are two firms, one firm is Niranjan Sharma, Belan Bazar which is proprietary firm having registration no. 188 of 1999 regarding which the said letter had been issued, whereas there is another partnership firm of seven persons M/s Niranjan Sharma having registration no. 150 of 2008 regarding which there is specific mention by the authorities on oath that it has never been debarred nor has been blacklisted and this is the firm in favour of which tender has been issued. In the said circumstances, this point raised by the petitioner fails. 8. So far the other point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the terms and conditions of notice inviting tender is concerned the petitioner in his writ petition has not sought the said relief but only after filing of the counter 4 affidavit this plea has been taken by the petitioner. There is nothing to show that experience of three years was a condition precedent for allotting tender to such firms from Annexure-A. It is quite apparent that the tenderers were directed to file experience certificate for three years if they had any such experience but there is nothing to show that on the basis of non- experience the tenders of any contractor will be rejected. This aspect of the matter also goes against the petitioner. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts and materials and the above findings of this Court, this writ petition has got no merit and is accordingly, dismissed. Devendra/ (S.N. Hussain, J.)