IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.350 of 2010 1. UJJAWAL VIKASH SEVA SANSTHAN, DADAR MANDI GULJAR BAGH, PATNA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY PRADEEP KUMAR, SON OF RAM ANURAGH PASWAN, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- RAMPURGAON, BAZAR SAMITI, P.S. BAHADURPUR, DISTRICT- PATNA. 2. PRADEEP KUMAR SON OF RAM ANURAGH PASWAN, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- RAMPURGAON BAZAR SAMITI, P.S.- BAHADURPUR, DISTRICT- PATNA, SECRETARY, UJJAWAL VIKASH SEVA SANSTHAN, DADAR MANDI, GULJAR BAGH, PATNA. 3. LAKSHMIPUR MAHILA SILAI KENDRA, VILLAGE - CHARHALMUDERA, P.O.- DHARAIYA, DISTRICT- GAYA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY CHANDAN KUMARI, W/O ABHAY KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHAHAL- MURERA, P.S.- ARARI, DISTRICT- GAYA. 4. CHANDAN KUMARI, WIFE OF ABHAY KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHAHAL-MURERA, P.S.- ARARI, DISTRICT- GAYA, SECRETARY LAKSHMIPUR, MAHILA SILAI KENDRA, VILLAGE- CHAHAL- MURERA, P.O.- DHARAIYA, DISTRICT- GAYA. . . . . . . PETITIONERS / APPELLANTS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH, THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE COLLECTOR, BEGUSARAI-CUM-CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT HEALTH COMMITTEE, BEGUSARAI. . . . . . . . RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2/ 14.02.2011 The petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 16448 of 2009 have preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, and are aggrieved by order dated 12.01.2010, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants. The respondent authorities had issued the advertisement in question in the year 2009, inviting tenders to hold health check-up camps in the prescribed area for school students of that area. Tenders of the two petitioners were found to be the lowest and were awarded the work. They were visited with the impugned order dated 12.11.2009, issued 2 under the signature of respondent no.3 (herein), wherein the writ petitioners were called upon to deposit bank draft for Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh), each being performance money, to be refunded after satisfactory completion of the work. The petitioners challenged this order by preferring the aforesaid C.W.J.C. No. 16448 of 2009, inter alia, on the ground that no such condition was to be found in the advertisement, and the writ petitioners may be allowed to work without the necessity of deposit of money, or to withdraw without any punitive action. 3. It appears to us that the requirement to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- by each of the petitioners by way of performance money was not stated in the tender notice. In that view of the matter, the communication dated 12.11.2009 is bad in law. The impugned action of respondent no.3 amounts to novation of contract which cannot be done unilaterally, and can only be with the consent of the parties. We do not agree with the order of the learned Single Judge. 4. This appeal is accordingly disposed of with the direction to respondent no.3 to allow the writ petitioners to work out the contract without the necessity of depositing Rs.1,00,000/-, or to allow them to withdraw from the contract without any fiscal or punitive action. 5. In the result, this appeal is allowed. Uday/ (S. K. Katriar, J.) (S. P. Singh, J.)