IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7126 of 2009 M/S GHANSHYAM LAL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 05/ 06.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In the instant writ application the petitioner prays for quashing of the notice inviting tender published in “Hindustan Daily” dated 08.06.2009 with respect to work of I. R. Q. P and Cross Drainage and Road Saving Work of Narayanpur Chock (N. H. 57). The petitioner and one Vishal Builtech (I) Pvt. Ltd. having been declared successful in technical bid were called for the financial bid vide letter dated 12.02.2009 of Chief Engineer Transport, North Bihar Section, Darbhanga on 14.02.2009. On scrutiny the financial bid of the petitioner was found to be the lowest. The Executive Engineer on 15.02.2009 recommended for allotment of work to the petitioner. In the mean time aforesaid Vishal Builtech (I) Pvt. Ltd. levelled some complaints of manipulation against the petitioner vide Annexure – 3. The Engineer-In-Chief vide his letter dated 05.05.2009 bearing 2 Memo No. 1545(E) observed that prima facie manipulations have been found in the documents. As such, show cause was issued to the petitioner as to why he should not be blacklisted. The petitioner states that a similar notice was issued to Vishal Builtech also. The petitioner submitted his reply on 18.05.2009. The grievance of the petitioner is that though his reply was pending the respondent issued a fresh tender on 08.06.2009 of the same work in question. Learned counsel submits that respondent seems to have cancelled the earlier tender on 13.05.2009 and has not disclosed any reason for the same. He submits that the cancellation was not even communicated to him and the endorsement of his earlier representative on Annexure – B is a fraudulent one. Mr. P.K. Verma, learned counsel for the State submits that the tender has been cancelled and the communication was received by petitioner’s representative, who has signed on annexure B. He states that the department has taken action against the erring officials and has put them under suspension. Even departmental proceeding has been initiated against them. He submits that 3 as per Clause 29, the employer reserves right to accept or reject any bid, and to cancel subject to compensating any financially affected bidder. It appears that the Chief Engineer prima facie found some manipulations in tender documents. The counsel for the State submits that it is open for the petitioner to participate in the subsequent tender and can have refund of his earnest money. As there is prima facie evidence of manipulations I do not find any illegality in action of respondent in cancelling of the bid of petitioner and issuing fresh tender. The writ petition is accordingly rejected. However, the petitioner would be entitled to refund of the earnest money and to participate in the fresh tender if he has not been otherwise prohibited from participating in the same. This application is disposed of. kundan (S. P. Singh, J.)