IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5839 of 2010 Nishikant Kumar, son of Shambhu Sharan Singh, Resident of Village Nuriya, P.O. Jaitipur, Kurua, P.S. Ghosi (Okari O.P.), District- Jahanabad Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Aurangabad 3. The Superintendent Engineer, Shown Uchayastariya, Nahar Anchal, Aurangabad 4. Executive Engineer, North Koeal Distributory Division, Murtha (Arbal), Jahanabad 5. M/s. Vivek Construction and Company, Matukchak, Abgila, District- Jehanabad, through its Director, Ram Krishna Prasad. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Vivek Kumar, Advocate For the State: M/S A.Amanullah, SC 17 and M.K.Pathak, AC to SC 17. ---------- 5. 23.6.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has come to this Court for a direction upon the respondents to cancel the agreement of work executed with respondent No. 5 M/s. Vivek Construction and Company for anti erosion work at village Sonebhadra under Kurtha Block, District Arwal on river Punpun and for a further direction to the respondents to allot the said work to him. The short facts relevant for the decision of 2 this case are that a notice inviting tender was published on 5.1.2010 for submission of tenders in two parts, i.e., technical and financial for the anti-erosion work. Four applicants including the petitioner and respondent no. 5 filed their tenders. Three of the tenderers were private limited companies. Respondent no. 5 was a firm. After the technical bids were opened, it was found that the respondent no. 5 as also another M/s. Hariom Injikom Private Limited had not filed their security deposits in the name of the company or the firm but that of their Director. An objection was made in this regard by the DAC (2) but the same was overruled ultimately by the Superintending Engineer in view of the fact that the post office does not issue NSC, TD or KVP in the name of firms but only in individual’s names. Thereafter the financial bid was opened and three tenderers including the petitioner were found to have submitted their tenders at 15% above the scheduled rates whereas respondent no. 5 had filed the tender for 0.15% over the scheduled rates. The other tenderers including the petitioner objected to the same but no action having been taken on the said objection, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3 This Court had by an earlier order directed the Chief Engineer to look into the said objection and representation and pass an appropriate order. Accordingly in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 4, an order dated 10.4.2010 (Annexure-C) passed by the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Aurangabad has been brought on the record. In the said order, it is stated that on an examination of the envelope containing the financial bid, it does not appear that the sealed envelope of respondent no. 5, M/s. Vivek Construction and Company had been opened and after changing the rates it had been sealed again. It has been further recorded that while the other three tenderers have shown rates 15% above the schedule rates, the rate of respondent no. 5 has been shown as 0.15% above the schedule rates and in the small column indicating the words above the words “15%” the words “shunya dashamlav” has been entered; although the words entered appear to be in the handwriting of two separate persons but the sane does not appear to have been made after opening the sealed envelope of the financial bid. It has also been observed that it appears 4 from the same rates quoted by the tenderers that the contractors have deliberately tried to do the same but respondent no. 5 was not in agreement with the other contractors and appears to have subsequently changed the rates. The Chief Engineer accordingly, concluded that full transparency has been observed in the disposal of the tenders. Learned counsel for the petitioner has again sought to urge that the acceptance of the technical bid of respondent no. 5 and of another tenderer was contrary to the conditions of the tender notice as the earnest money filed by them in the form of term deposit receipts were not in the name of the firm but of other individuals. It is contended by learned counsel that in another tender (Annexure-3) the tender had been rejected at the stage of technical bid by order dated 25.2.2009 whereas different standards have been applied in the present matter. The said aspect has been dealt with in the counter affidavit where it is stated that in the present matter only NSC, TD, KVP issued by the post office were permitted to be deposited as earnest money and for the said reason since the post office does not issue the same in the name of 5 firms or companies, the technical bid has been accepted as valid. Learned counsel for the State submits that the same position did not obtain in the case of the tenders brought on the record by Annexure-3 as the fixed deposit receipts of scheduled commercial banks were also permissible in that case which is evident from Annexure-3 also. This Court is in agreement with the said stand on behalf of the Respondent-State. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the authorities in the light of the findings recorded by the Chief Engineer that there has been no tampering with the sealed envelope. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. S. Pandey ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)