IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18062 of 2009 ***** Arbind Kumar, Aged about 41 years, S/o Shri Raghunandan Prasad, resident of village- Chousandi, P.O. Nimthu, P.S. Bathuni, Distt-Gaya. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, East Champaran, Motihari. 4. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. …. …. Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. M.K.Singh, Government Pleader-XII ---------- 2. 21.12.2009. Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioner claims himself to be the only successful bidder for construction of a road of Package No.B.R.-12 R./1 but even after the award of work, as would be evidence from the work order issued to him contained in Annexure-3 dated 9.11.2009, by virtue of an order passed by the Chief Engineer-I, dated 4.12.2009 contained in Annexure-1 the same stood cancelled. Annexure-1 is being challenged in the present writ application on the ground that the same seems to be totally arbitrary and based on misplaced facts. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when the tender was invited and the bids were submitted there was no notification dated 29.10.2009 because the tender was invited on 9.10.2009. Subsequently, the petitioner has been removed from the defaulters list dated 7.11.2009 by a notification issued by the concerned respondent himself as would be evidence from Annexure-4. In other words, when the work order was issued in favour of the petitioner even if - 2 - for the sake of arguments it is stated that the petitioner was disqualified the same stood removed on 7.11.2009. The alternative submission of learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that 7.11.2009 order will relate back to the date he was put on the list of defaulters. Obviously, there is something amiss or may be oversight by which the impugned order dated 4.12.2009 has come to be issued. The facts being what they are, petitioner has made out a case for interference. Annexure-1 stands quashed. The writ application is allowed. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)