IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8916 of 2010 M/S I. P. S. NARAYAN CONSTRUCTION THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MR. RANDHIR KUMAR S/O SRI INDRADEO PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- KAUTILYA NAGAR, HILSA, P.O.+P.S.- HILSA, DISTT.- NALANDA …PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE BIHAR RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, (BRRDA), THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, 'VISHWESHWARRAIYA BHAWAN', BAILY ROAD, PATNA 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, 'VISHWESHWARRAIYA BHAWAN', BAILY ROAD, PATNA 4. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF CUM ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CUM SPECIAL SECRETARY, RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, 'VISHWESHWARRAIYA BHAWAN', BAILY ROAD, PATNA 5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER-1, RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, 'VISHWESHWARRAIYA BHAWAN', BAILY ROAD, PATNA 6. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, WORKS CIRCLE-2, PATNA 7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, WORKS DIVISION-2, HILSA, (NALANDA) …. RESPONDENTS -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Sahay, Advocate For Respondents no. 1 to 7: Mr. Jainendra Kumar Sinha, A.C. to G.A. 6 For Respondent no.8 : Mr. Vivek Prasad, Advocate -------- 09/ 19.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State of Bihar and its authorities as well as learned counsel for respondent no.8. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to consider the tender of the petitioner relating to construction of road from NH-30A Dayalpur to Madanpur under Mukhya Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana in accordance with law after opening his financial bid and to verify all the tender documents of other tenderers of the said work. However, by an interim application, other reliefs were also - 2 - sought for by the petitioner challenging decision of the Technical Bid Committee dated 28.04.2010 (Annexure 3) relating to the work mentioned in serial no.2, by which the technical bid of the petitioner was declared invalid, but that of respondent no.8 was selected for allotment of work and also challenging letter dated 25.05.2010 (Annexure 7) issued by the Executive Engineer directing respondent no.8 to start the work in question. . 3. Although learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently raises all the points taken in this petition, but from the facts and circumstances of this case, it is quite apparent that there were three tenderers including the petitioner and respondent no.8 and when the bids were opened and were considered item wise with respect to the requisite work, respondent no.8 was found to have secured highest marks. Hence it is quite apparent that the said order was passed after perusing the materials on record and there was no illegality therein. 4. So far other questions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, it is apparent from the counter-affidavit filed by respondent no.8 that he had completed the earlier work during the pendency of this writ petition, but the Chief Engineer had given specific directions including direction no. 20 that before the agreement, the Executive Engineer should see that the tenderer had no previous work pending with him. He further submits that since respondent no.8 was having previous work pending with him, he was not fit to be allotted the work in question. 5. The facts and circumstances of the case make it quite apparent that the impugned order in favour of respondent no.8 was passed - 3 - on 28.04.2010 (Annexure 3) and prior to that tender notice, issued in the newspaper on 09.02.2010 (Annexure 1), provided that if record of any tenderer with respect to completion of work was bad and if he had left some work half done, the bid should not be decided in his favour. Here in this case, neither there is anything to show that the record of respondent no.8 was bad with regard to completion of earlier work nor is there anything to show that he had left any work half done, rather it is not in dispute that respondent no.8 had completed the earlier allotted work during the pendency of this writ petition. 6. So far the direction of the Chief Engineer given vide letter dated 14.05.2010 (Annexure 5) is concerned, it was much subsequent to the impugned order of the Technical Bid Committee dated 28.04.2010 (Annexure 3) and hence the said letter of the Chief Engineer cannot be assumed to be effective against the impugned order. Furthermore the impugned decision having been taken by the Technical Bid Committee, it cannot be overridden by some letter issued by the Chief Engineer. 7. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. MPS/ (S.N.Hussain, J.)