IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9914 of 2009 ARVIND KUMAR SON OF SRI KISHORI SHARMA RESIDNET OF MOHALLA CHHOTKI DELHA TEKARI ROAD, P.S. DELHA DISTRICT GAYA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, WORKS CIRCLE, GAYA. 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, WORKS DIVISION, GAYA. 5. SRI YOGENDRA SINGH SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHIKHANPUR POST MIRABIGHA, P.S. CHANDAULI DISTRICT GAYA. 6. SRI SANJEET KUMAR SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE UTRAIN P.S. KONCH DISTRICT GAYA. ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. N. K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Ramashish. For the State respondents :- Mr. Baidya Nath Thakur, A.C. to S.C. XVIII For Respondent no. 6 :- Mr. Rabindra Kumar Sinha. -------- 5 19/01/2010 A very detailed order dated 19.08.2009 came to be recorded by the Court on the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner. An order of status quo was granted. The issue was award of contract to private respondent no. 6 for construction of road under the Chief Minister Gramin Road Scheme - 2 - between Gaya-Konch road to village Kauria. Petitioner’s contention is that the tender has been awarded to respondent n. 6 in surreptitious manner not sticking to the time and date fixed for opening the bid. It is relevant to state that initially the financial bid was to open on 11.07.2009 but nothing was done right upto 5 O’Clock on that date and then all of a sudden the tender came to be awarded to respondent no. 6 on 22.07.2009 without any information or notice to the petitioner in this regard. In other words, the tender process, according to the petitioner, is not above board. Both the State and the private respondent were noticed and were directed to file their affidavits. Their stand is that the tender was actually finalised on 22.07.2009 as for some reason the original date dated 11.7.2009 could not be adhered to and in this regard communication had been sent to all the tenderers on 11.07.2009 itself. They have also brought on record bid sheet which was opened and recorded on 22.07.2009. On the bid sheet there is signature of all the three bidders including the present petitioner. The stand of both the - 3 - State as well as private respondent is that there was participation by the petitioner in finalisation of the financial bid and the hue and cry being raised now is after he lost in cornering the contract. Some other communication made by the petitioner thereafter was only a way of covering up. Submission of the learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner is that the signature on the bid sheet is a forged signature and these are basically procured documents with the object of defeating the claim of the petitioner. Whether the signatures are forged or not, the Court has no mechanism to certify but, prima facie, when there is some evidence to show about the participation of the petitioner then the whole case which has been built up by him falls on its face. If the petitioner is serious about the allegation and his submission that his signature is forged on the bid sheet, then he has recourse under the law before an appropriate court under an appropriate proceeding. In the totality of the materials and evidence, this Court has no - 4 - mechanism to certify that the petitioner had not participated in the opening of the financial bid and final award of the contract. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)