IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8333 of 2010 1. SADANAND SINGH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SADANAND SINGH S/O LATE MEDNI SINGH R/O VILL.- DHARHARA, P.S.- DHARHARA, DISTT.- MUNGER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, VISHWARIYA BHAWAN, BAILY ROAD, PATNA 2. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT OF GOVT. OF BIHAR VISHWARIYA BHAWAN, BAILY ROAD, PATNA 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER(I) RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, VISHWARIYA BHAWAN, BAILY ROAD, PATNA 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER RURAL WORKS CIRCLE, MUNGER 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER RURAL WORK DIVISION II, MUNGER ----------- 3. 17.05.2010 Allegation was made by the petitioner that for extraneous reasons the technical bid of the petitioner alongwith others has been returned and re-tendering has been ordered without any explanation as such because the communication dated 3.05.2010 contained in Annexure-1 does not indicate the exact reason for such rejection. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents wherein it has been categorically stated that on opening of the technical bid of the petitioner, the Tender Committee found that the petitioner had failed to furnish the detailed documents as per clause 12.2 of the S.B.D. documents supplied to him. Non-fulfillment of the submission of the technical bid in terms of the direction was the reason 2 for rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid alongwith others and re-advertisement has been resorted to. With the categorical statement and evidence having been furnished by the respondents, their action for re- tendering is based on substantive material and reason. There is no infirmity in such action taken with regard to the tender in question. The writ petition of the petitioner is misplaced, devoid of merit and is dismissed. V.K. Pandey (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)