IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9057 of 2010 M/S S.K.TRADERS, Birla Mandir Road, Opp. Church Gate, Patna- 4, through its proprietor namely, Shankar Kumar son of late Yamuna Kumar Sahu, resident of Birla Mandir Road, P.S. Pirbahore, District – Patna. Versus 1. THE BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD , Patna. 2. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. 4. The Deputy Secretary (Store), Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. ----------- 02. 21.05.2010 Annexure-1 dated 26.3.2010 has been challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner by virtue of which he has been debarred from participating in future tenders to be floated by the respondent – Bihar School Examination Board. The background to the passing of annexure-1 is stated to be the failure of the petitioner to stick to his offer for lifting of answer books of Matric and Intermediate Examinations. Petitioner had quoted a sum of Rs.25 Lacs and odd amount but he failed to lift the copies, which compelled the respondents to go for a fresh tender. In the fresh tender petitioner again was the successful bidder but on a reduced price of Rs.17,87,513.00. Copies were lifted on the basis of the fresh tender. It is the conduct of the petitioner not to honour the earlier bid of Rs.25 lacs, which led to passing of annexure- 1. Mr. P K Shahi, learned counsel representing the respondent authorities submits that annexure-1 is a 2 culmination of a decision based on audit objection of Comptroller and Accountant General and the Board had to take action on the basis of the audit objection. Failure of the petitioner to stick to the earlier bid and allowing the petitioner to again go for the same tender on a reduced price is supposed to have caused loss to the public exchequer for more than 7.43 lacs. It is under this background respondent authorities decided to pass annexure-1. There is some omission on the part of the petitioner no doubt but that omission ought to have been dealt with at an appropriate time. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner managed to manipulate and get a fresh tender issued. Respondents decided to issue a fresh tender in which petitioner turned out to be again a successful bidder, may be on a reduced amount but then he was allowed to complete the tender or the award of work on the basis of the new tender. In other words, petitioner was allowed to go scot-free easily by the people, who were at the helm of affairs. If the petitioner was at fault, so were the respondent authorities. There could be an element for complicity but all this ought to have been looked into at the appropriate time and stage. Merely because CAG pointed out these facts, the petitioner’s neck is not going to be chopped as a cover up for omissions of the respondent authorities as well. It is too late in the day now to take action 3 against the petitioner for the tender relating to the year 2007 when fault lies even respondents side. Annexure-1 dated 26.3.2010 is quashed. The writ application is allowed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J )