IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7936 of 2011 Shakaldeo Mishra, Son of Shri Chandradeo Mishra, Resident of Mohalla-Jai Prakash Nagar, I.T.I., Bettiah, Police Station-Bettiah (M), District-West Champaran. ……Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Engineer-in-Chief (North), Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Balmiki Nagar, West Champaran, Beettiah. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Tirhut Canal Circle, Water Resources Department, Bettiah. 6. The Executive Engineer, Tirhut Canal Division No. 1, Water Resources Department, Bettiah. 7. Rupesh Kumar Srivastava S/O Anand Bihari Srivastava Proprietor of Anand Consultants Office At S-8, First Floor Shakuntala Palace Boring Road, Patna. 8. Naushad Ahamd S/o Jalil Ahmad R/O Village Kandauriy, P.S. Lauriya, District-Bettiah. …….Respondents. -------------- For the petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For the respondents-State: Mr. Udai Shankar Singh, Advocate Mrs. Poonam Singh, Advocate. For respondent no.7 : Mr. Syed Arshad Alam, Advocate Mrs. Anjum Perveen, Advocate For respondent no.8 : Mr. Gautam Kumar Yadav, Advocate. --------- 07/ 24.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and learned counsel for both the intervenors. 2. One of the interlocutory applications bearing I.A.No.6266 of 2011 has already been allowed by this Court on 24.10.2011 and the intervener applicant had been added as respondent - 2 - no.7. Another interlocutory application bearing I.A.No.7891 of 2011 has been filed on behalf of one Naushad Ahmad for being added as intervener respondent as he is the person in whose favour item no.7 of Annexure-1 was allotted. In the said circumstances, I.A. No.7891 of 2011 is allowed. Let the intervener applicant be added as respondent no.8 to this writ petition. 3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (i) A writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order or directing quashing the letter No.858 dated 19.4.2011 (Annexure-‘7’) issued by respondent no.4, the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Balmikinagar West Champaran, Bettiah whereby and whereunder he had rejected the technical bid submitted by the petitioner on the ground that the affidavit furnished with the technical bid is not in proper format. (ii) A writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order or direction directing the respondents to consider the financial bid submitted by the petitioner pursuant to Tender Notice No.04 of year 2010-11 issued by the office of Respondent no.6. (iii) Any other appropriate writ/order or direction which your Lordships may deem fit and proper. 4. From the facts admitted by learned counsel for all the parties it transpires that the financial bid had already been opened and had been allotted to the tenderers who were found suitable and those tenderers had almost completed the work allotted to them. Hence this Court does not find any occasion to upset the entire procedure which has attained or is about to attain finality. 5. However, one matter intrigues this Court as in order - 3 - dated 19.04.2011 the tender committee had observed that the tender of the petitioner does not fulfill the required condition as he had not produced an affidavit as required vide circular dated 14.12.2009 issued by the Water Resources Department to all the concerned Chief Engineers. This conclusion had been drawn only after seeing the undertaking given by the petitioner on 05.01.2011 which is not as per the aforesaid requirement. But the authority has completely failed to realize that on the same date an affidavit had also been filed by the petitioner in which the same declaration as required in the aforesaid circular on affidavit had been made with the only difference that the said affidavit is in Hindi. This, in my view, cannot be held to be a violation of the said circular and on such grounds, the petitioner cannot be debarred from any future consideration. 6. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is disposed of. It goes without saying that by disposal of this writ petition interim order dated 24.06.2011 automatically stands vacated. Sunil/ (S.N.Hussain, J.)