IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9514 of 2011 Anup Ranjan son of Sri Madhusudan Prasad, resident of Valmiki Nagar, P.S.- Valmiki Nagar, District-West Champaran. …….. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. Engineer-in-Chief (North) Bihar, Patna. 3. Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department (Valmiki Nagar) (North) Bihar, Patna. 4. Superintending Engineer, Triveni Canal Division, Raxaul, East Champaran. 5. Executive Engineer, Triveni Canal Division, Raxaul, East Champaran. 6. Executive Engineer, Triveni Canal Construction Division, Narkatiyaganj, District-West Champaran. ……. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Amitabh Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. M.D. Dwivedi, S.C. 23. ---------- 06/ 25.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 05.05.2011 (Annexure-2) by which the Executive Engineer, Triveni Canal Division, Raxaul, East Champaran (respondent no.5) cancelled the tender in which the petitioner alone was entitled for the purpose and also challenging NIT No.03/2010-11 dated 10.01.2011 and also dated 28.01.2011 of Triveni Canal Division, Raxaul and Narkatiaganj and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. The point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said order dated 05.05.2011 has been passed without assigning any reason which is absolutely violative of the principles - 2 - of law settled by the Apex Court in case of Mahabir Auto Stores and others Vs. Indian Oil Corporation and others, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1031. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the decision had already been taken by the authorities concerned vide their resolution dated 04.05.2011 (Annexure-A) and the impugned Annexure-2 to the writ petition is merely a notice given to all informing about the said decision. He further states that the order/resolution dated 04.05.2011 of the Tender Committee concerned clearly shows that every aspect of the matter had been considered and the grounds for the impugned action has specifically been stated therein. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the point raised by the petitioner does not appear to be legal and valid. Furthermore, no malafide could be shown by the petitioner as the agreements of others were also considered, whereafter fresh tender has been invited due to urgent requirement and several persons applied afresh, including the petitioner. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find merit in this writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)