IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2120 of 2010 1. PRATAP JITENDRA NARAYAN SINGH S/O LATE JOTY NARAYAN SINGH R/O 120,SHASTRI NAGAR,ROAD NO-4,P.S.RAMPUR,DISTT-GAYA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (PRISON) BIHAR,PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ROHTAS AT SASARAM 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DISTRICT JAIL SASARAM ----------- 02. 5.2.2010 Petitioner wants a direction upon the respondents to consider his financial bid for supply of main foodgrains and other materials and would also like quashing of the decision by which the technical bid of the petitioner has been rejected. Submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the rejection of the technical bid on the ground that he had submitted tender for Divisional Jail, Sasaram only and not for Sub Jail, Bikramganj, is on an erroneous consideration or wrong interpretation to the notice inviting tender. A plain reading of the notice inviting tender would show that the technical and financial bids had to be filed separately in two envelopes. Other formalities were required to be carried out in the name of the Superintendent of respective jail. If that be so, if the petitioner filed his technical bid for participation in the light of notice inviting tender contained in annexure-1 only for Sasaram Jail then he has committed no breach. The stand of the State on the other hand is that the notice inviting tender speaks for itself. It is a composite 2 notice inviting tender for both the jails. If the petitioner failed to file his technical bid for both the jails, then the respondents were left with no option but to reject such tender filed on behalf of the petitioner. The Court has gone through the notice inviting tender contained in annexure-1. The submission made on behalf of the State is borne out from the reading of the said notice. Petitioner had to bid for both the jails. If he failed to do so, his bid was liable to be rejected. The notice inviting tender is composite in nature. The tenders had to be filed accordingly. There is no error in the decision taken by the respondents. The writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J )