IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3191 of 2008 M/S DEVENDRA SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- Counsel for the petitioner :- Mr.Devendra Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhay Kumar Shambhu, Adv Counsel for the respondents :- Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, Adv. 3. 10.7.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned J.C. to Additional Advocate General No. 2 for the State. The petitioner prays for quashing of the order dated 21.1.2008 (Annexure-8) passed by the Departmental Tender Committee headed by respondent no. 1 Secretary -cum – Commissioner, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar by which the contract granted to the petitioner was cancelled and further direction was issued to the Chief Engineer to invite re-tender with regard to the same work which was allotted to the petitioner. A tender notice was advertised on 9.4.2007 on which the petitioner and other persons applied and ultimately two persons including the petitioner were found fit in the technical bid and thereafter financial bid was opened. The petitioner’s tender being the lower, the work was allotted to him by order dated 30.5.2007 of the Chief Engineer, Water Resources (Irrigation) Department, Patna. Subsequently, the other tenderer, namely, Surendar Prasad made a complaint in the department that the petitioner’s bid had not been properly placed and thus the tender could not have been finalized in his favour. On the basis of the said complaint the matter was considered in the department and ultimately at its meeting dated - 2 - 21.1.2008, the Departmental Tender Committee consisting of the Member Secretary, Water Resources Department, Engineer in Chief and the Chief Engineer issued the impugned order cancelling the tender and directing for re-tender. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order has been passed behind the back of the petitioner and as a matter of fact, the Superintending Engineer had approached the Post Master, G.P.O, Patna for the purpose of pledging the pass book of the petitioner through letter dated 30.4.2007 but the official of the Post Office reported that since the same had been already pledged by the petitioner in favour of the Executive Engineer, Flood Control Division, Mokama therefore it is not required to pledge the pass book in the same division. For the said reason, it is submitted that the authorities could not have taken the aforesaid decision dated 21.1.2008 contained in Annexure- 8. It is urged by learned counsel that the authorities have acted behind the back of the petitioner without giving him an opportunity of explaining the position, therefore, the decision of the authorities is vitiated and the same is fit to be set aside. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supports the action of the authorities stating that the matter was re-considered on the basis of the complaint made by the contractor Surendra Prasad and thereafter on a consideration at different levels in the department the matter was placed before the Departmental Tender Committee headed by Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department. After review - 3 - and discussion of all the relevant facts the Committee concluded that the procedure of the decision for allotment of the tender to the petitioner was doubtful and hence cancelled the same and Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Patna was directed for re- tender of the work. It is submitted that the said action of the departmental authorities is justified and not liable to be interfered with. On a consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that once the tender had been finalized in favour of the petitioner and the work had been allotted to him, it was not open to the authorities to cancel the same without complying with the principles of natural justice by giving opportunity to the petitioner to explain the circumstances in his favour. Thus the impugned decision dated 21.1.2008 stands vitiated and cannot be permitted to stand and it is accordingly quashed. The writ application is accordingly allowed and the matter is remanded back to the authorities to take a fresh decision in the matter after complying with the principles of natural justice. Any such decision should be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. P. Kumar (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)