IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18629 of 2009 ***** Tathagat Construction Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director, Madhup Kumar Singh, S/o Shri Shambhu Nath Singh, resident of village- Rajopatti, Dumra Road, P.S. Sitamarhi, Distt. Sitamarhi. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Secretary, Bihar Rural Roads Development Agency, State of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer, Rural Works Department, Patna. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Muzaffarpur. 6. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Sitamarhi. …. …. Respondents ----------- 2. 5.1.2010. Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioner had approached the High Court earlier with regard to NIT Re-Tender No. RWD/PMGSY/NIT/HC/09/04. After hearing the parties the Court was not inclined to interfere in the matter but relegated the petitioner to move respondent no.4 i.e. the Chief Engineer with his grievance. The matter came to the notice of the Chief Engineer on the basis of Annexure-4 filed by the petitioner and then a communication dated 25.11.2009 contained in Annexure-5 came to be issued. Annexure-5 is under challenge in the present writ application. Submission of the counsel is that the decision not to grant the contract to the petitioner is violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. He also alleges that the decision to grant or award the work to one Shashi Kant Singh is also malafide and unreasonable. Learned counsel for the State submits that the reason for non-award of the work to the petitioner is indicated in Annexure-5 itself. - 2 - He brings to the notice the instructions to bidders which is Annexure-2 to the writ application specially Clause 4.4 B(b)(i), which states that each bidder must demonstrate availability for construction work, either owned, or on lease or on hire, of the key equipment stated in Appendix to the bid. In other words, each tenderer must own equipments or obtain it on lease or on hire. When the technical bid of Shashi Kant Singh was considered he had produced evidence about the equipments and his ability to hire the said equipment coupled with the fact that he was the lowest bidder, the work order came to be awarded to him. Submission of the counsel thereafter is that since the petitioner owns the equipments, therefore, his case should be put on a higher pedestal than that of Shashi Kant Singh. This submission of the petitioner is not based on any rationale or clause of the tender. If Shashi Kant Singh is not otherwise disqualified in the technical bid than the natural corollary is that the lowest bidder will corner the contract to the detriment of the present petitioner. There is no illegality in the decision, moreso, contained in Annexure-5. The writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)