Patna High Court
Pawan Kumar Choubey vs The State Of Bihar on 18 January, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18041 of 2024
======================================================
Pawan Kumar Choubey Son of Ganesh Choubey, Resident of Near
Gurudawara Laxmipur, Gurubazar,, P.S.- Barari, District- Katihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Public Health
Engineering Department, Govt. of Bihar, Bihar.
2. The Engineer-in-Chief -cum- Special Secretary, Public Health Engineering
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Bihar.
3. The Chief Engineer, PH Zone, Bhagalpur.
4. The Superintending Engineer, PH Circle, Bhagalpur.
5. The Executive Engineer, PH Division, Bhagalpur West.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Addl. Advocate General (4)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 18-01-2025
Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, the learned
Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Anjani Kumar,
learned Additional Advocate General-4.
2. The sole contention of the petitioner is that
despite his documents having been evaluated in the
Technical Bid, he was not informed the reasons for his
being held technically unresponsive.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18041 of 2024 dt.18-01-2025
2/3
3. It appears from the records that in the
Notice Inviting Tender floated by the respondents, the
petitioner had participated and was adjudged the sole
technically responsive bidder. For this reason, viz single
bidder in the fray, the tender had to be withdrawn. Later
again, in the re-tender, the petitioner participated and
was not found to be technically responsive.
4. The contention of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh,
learned Senior Advocate is that if within time, reasons
would have been made known to him about the objection
of the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee about his Bank
Guarantee not matching the requirements under the NIT,
he could have offered some explanation.
5. The grievance is genuine.
6. Nonetheless, the learned Additional
Advocate General-4 has pointed out that in the tender in
which the petitioner had participated, there was another
participant and the bank guarantee of both the
participants were found to be not matching the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18041 of 2024 dt.18-01-2025
3/3
requirements. There cannot be any gainsaying that the
participants were required to be intimated about the
reason for non-acceptance of their technical bid.
7. Nonetheless, since that tender could not
muster necessary number of participants who were found
to be technically responsive, that also was withdrawn. In
this situation, the petitioner has not been put to any
serious loss with the option to him to participate again if
tender is floated remaining intact.
8. We are therefore of the view that no
interference is required in this matter presently.
9. The writ petition is dismissed.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
aditya/krishna
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 18.01.2025.
Transmission Date