IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1879 of 2010 1. MAA JAGDAMBIKA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. KARMA ROAD, AURANGABAD, P.S. AURANGABAD TOWN, DISTT. AURANGABAD, BIHAR THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SHRI RAJESHWAR SINGH S/O LATE MUNDRIKA SINGH, KARMA ROAD, AURANGABAD, P.S. AURANGABAD TOWN, DISTT. AURANGABAD Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WATER RESOURCES DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF (MID) WATER RESOURCES DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF (NORTH) WATER RESOURCES DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-CUM-INTERNAL FINANCIAL ADVISER WATER RESOURCES DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER FLOOD CONTROL AND MONITORING CIRCLE, SICHAI BHAWAN, PATNA 7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, KOSHANG, PATNA 8. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GANGA PUMP CANAL DIVISION NO. 2, BATESHWARSTHAN, KAHALGAON, CAMP-SHIVNARAYANPUR (BHAGALPUR) ----------- 2 04/02/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In CWJC No. 4014 of 2009 very many arguments were made against non-award of contract in favour of the petitioner which came to be rejected on the ground that the turn over document which came to be filed by the petitioner along with the tender documents were at variance with each - 2 - other and the so called profit and loss account tendered were a kind of begotten or procured documents to gain eligibility for participation in the tender. The Court was not very convinced with the conflicting documents which had been brought on record both by the petitioner and certified by the respondents in the matter but on insistence of learned Senior Counsel that if he is given an opportunity to appear before the tender committee and given a hearing, he can explain all the documents and the variance in the profit and loss accounts. Indulgence was granted by the Court vide order dated 8.12.2009. Even that order had taken note of some of the aspects in detail but liberty was granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice. The petitioner is back before this Court in the present writ application challenging the order which has been passed pursuant to the earlier direction of this Court. The impugned order is Annexure-1/1 and is dated 8.1.2010. A bare perusal and a reading of the said order establishes the fact that the petitioner has not been able to successfully explain his profit and loss account despite an opportunity of hearing both in person as well as in writing - 3 - was granted to him. If the petitioner has failed to explain away the discrepancies which have been noted in the order and which was also noted by this Court in its earlier order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4014 of 2009 then the failure is of the petitioner and not of the respondents. No interference is required with the impugned order. This writ application is thus dismissed. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)