IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.144 of 2009 M/S ARCH EN DESIGN, B1/37 Ground Floor, Hauz Khas, New Delhi through its Proprietor Architect Ashok Kumar. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Advance Planning Circle, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. Hospitech Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd. having its office at UG-64, World Trade Centre, Barakhamba Avenue, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110001, through its Project Director Major General Ashim Chakravarti. ----------- For the Appellants : M/S. Chittaranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate, Rajni Kant Jha. For the State : Mr. Md. Anis Akhtar, A.C. to AAG X For the Respondents : M/S. Jitendra Singh & Kamlesh Kishore. --------- 8 08/07/2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the writ Court under appeal. The writ Court was called upon by the respondent-writ petitioner to examine whether the decision making process, particularly the action of the authorities in opening the technical bids and thereafter financial bids which was required to be submitted in sealed cover separately, behind the back of the parties, was a reasonable and fair procedure sufficient to give an assurance of fairness in arriving at the final decision. The writ Court has considered various authorities and without being influenced by any fact or evaluations in respect of final decision, it has come to a clear opinion that the authorities adopted a procedure which was not fair and reasonable. - 2 - The State took shelter of clause 2.1 of the letter of invitation to submit that if the writ petitioner had any doubt or misgivings regarding the decision making process or the procedure, he could have sought a clarification. A perusal of clause 2.1 of the letter of invitation discloses that the said clause provides for seeking of clarification only in respect of documents and not any other matter. On behalf of the appellant it has been submitted that there was no requirement in the letter of invitation to open the sealed tenders regarding technical bids and financial bids in presence of any of the parties. We find that the writ Court was fully aware of this situation but has still held that the State and its authorities were obliged to adopt a fair and transparent procedure. Such a requirement emanates from Article 14 of the Constitution of India and binds the State and its instrumentality. The writ Court has rightly come to the conclusion that at all stages of opening of bid papers there is requirement of doing so publicly with notice to the parties concerned so that the “authenticity of the bid documents can never be disputed”. Definitely, if the authenticity of bid documents comes under cloud on account of unfair procedure lacking in transparency, the defect of procedure goes to the root of the matter and the writ Court was right in interfering with the entire process. The writ Court has made no comments about the merit of the final decision but in the facts of the case nothing was required to be said about it once the decision making process was found to be lacking in fairness and transparency on account of sealed tenders being opened behind the back of the parties. - 3 - We find no good reason to interfere with the order under appeal. This Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Anjana Prakash, J.) AMIN