Patna High Court
P. Jyoti And Co., Charted Accountant vs The State Of Bihar on 22 July, 2026
Author: Sudhir Singh
Bench: Rajesh Kumar Verma, Sudhir Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10081 of 2026
======================================================
P. Jyoti and Co., Charted Accountant a Partnership firm, having its Regd.
Office at 6/7, 1st floor, Dukhan Ram Plaza, Exhibition Road, Patna, through
one of its Partner, Sri Paramjeet Singh Baghail, Aged about 36 years, Gender
Male, Son of Subodh Singh, Resident of Ratanpur Gidhaur, Jamui, P.S.
Gidhaur, District- Jamui, Bihar-811305.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna
2. Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Muzaffarpur through its Vice-
Chancellor, Muzaffarpur, Bihar-842001
3. The Vice-Chancellor, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University,
Muzaffarpur, Bihar-842001
4. The Registrar, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Muzaffarpur,
Bihar-842001
5. The Finance Officer, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University,
Muzaffarpur, Bihar-842001
6. The Tender Committee through the Registrar, Babasaheb Bhimrao
Ambedkar University, Muzaffarpur, Bihar-842001
7. Rishav Sinha and Co., through its Partner, Rishav Sinha, having its office
situated at Mithapur Bus Stand (Gate No. 02), Flat No. 106, Hari Sewa
Complex, above Brijvashi Sweets, Sri Krishnapuri, Patna - 800001
8. P Puneet and Co., through its Partner, Priyadarshi Puneet, having its office
situated at 105, Pushpanjali Venkatesh Apartment, off Buddh Marg, Patna,
Bihar - 800001.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Amit Anand, Advocate
Ms. Jaya Sonam, Advocate
Ms. Somya Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Bhaskar, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Advocate (5)
For the BRABU : Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Sunit KUmar, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Patna High Court CWJC No.10081 of 2026 dt.22-07-2026
2/16
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 22-07-2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has sought the following reliefs in
the present writ petition:
“i. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or
direction quashing Clause 9 contained under the
heading “Important Instructions” at Page No. 12 of the
Request for Proposal (RFP) forming part of Tender
Notice No. BU/2026/02 dated 18.04.2026 issued by
Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University,
whereby firms having prior association with the
respondent University, its constituent colleges or
affiliated colleges have been arbitrarily disqualified
from participating in the tender process;
ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or
direction declaring the action of the respondent
authorities in disqualifying the Petitioner Firm from the
technical bidding process pursuant to Tender Notice
No. BU/2026/02 dated 18.04.2026 as illegal, arbitrary,
discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India;
iii. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or
direction commanding the respondent authorities to
permit the Petitioner Firm to participate in the financial
bidding process pursuant to Tender Notice No.
BU/2026/02 dated 18.04.2026 by treating the Petitioner
as technically qualified in accordance with the
prescribed eligibility criteria;
iv. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or
direction directing the respondent authorities to conduct
the tender process in a fair, transparent, competitive
Patna High Court CWJC No.10081 of 2026 dt.22-07-2026
3/16and non-discriminatory manner in consonance with
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, Rule 173 of the
General Financial Rules and the settled principles
governing public procurement;
V. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or
direction staying all further proceedings and
consequential actions pursuant to Tender Notice No.
BU/2026/02 dated 18.04.2026, including
opening/finalization of the financial bids and award of
contract, during the pendency of the present writ
petition;
vi. For issuance of any other writ, order or direction
which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the present case in the
interest of justice, equity and fair play.
3. The present writ petition has been filed challenging
Clause 9 under the heading “Important Instructions” contained
in the Request for Proposal (RFP) forming part of Tender Notice
No. BU/2026/02 dated 18.04.2026 issued by Babasaheb
Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, for
appointment of Chartered Accountant Firms to provide
Financial Management and Technical Support Services to the
University, its constituent colleges and affiliated colleges.
4. The petitioner claims to be a Chartered Accountant
Firm possessing the requisite eligibility, infrastructure, technical
expertise and experience for execution of the work under the
RFP and states that it had previously rendered professional
Patna High Court CWJC No.10081 of 2026 dt.22-07-2026
4/16
services to the respondent University and its affiliated
institutions.
5. It is the petitioner’s case that an earlier tender
bearing Tender Notice No. BU/2025/07 dated 06.12.2025 had
been issued by the respondent University for the same nature of
services. The petitioner participated therein, its bid was
accepted, and it was declared the lowest (L-1) bidder after
technical evaluation. However, the said tender process was not
taken to its logical conclusion and no work order was issued.
6. Thereafter, the respondent University issued the
impugned Tender Notice No. BU/2026/02 dated 18.04.2026
incorporating Clause 9 under the “Important Instructions”. The
petitioner, while objecting to the said condition, nevertheless
participated in the tender process by submitting its bid along
with the requisite Earnest Money Deposit.
7. According to the petitioner, its technical bid was
rejected solely on the ground that it had previously rendered
professional services to colleges affiliated with Babasaheb
Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University, thereby attracting the
disqualification contained in Clause 9 of the RFP.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Clause 9 of the impugned RFP is manifestly arbitrary,
Patna High Court CWJC No.10081 of 2026 dt.22-07-2026
5/16
unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India as it disqualifies otherwise eligible Chartered Accountant
Firms solely on the ground of their prior professional
association with the respondent University. It is submitted that
the impugned condition bears no rational nexus with the object
of the tender and, instead of treating prior experience with the
University as an advantage, penalizes such experience. It is
further submitted that the petitioner satisfies all the prescribed
eligibility criteria and has been declared technically disqualified
only on account of the impugned clause. Reliance has been
placed on Rule 173 of the General Financial Rules and the
decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in BLT EPC Ltd. v.
Macawber Beekay Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2024) 12 SCC 614 and
Meerut Development Authority v. Association of Management
Studies reported in (2009) 6 SCC 171 to contend that tender
conditions must be fair, transparent, non-arbitrary and cannot be
tailor-made to exclude a particular class of bidders.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent University submits that the petitioner, having
participated in the tender process with full knowledge of the
tender conditions, cannot subsequently challenge the same after
being declared technically disqualified. Accordingly, it is urged
Patna High Court CWJC No.10081 of 2026 dt.22-07-2026
6/16
that no interference is warranted.
10. The following issues arise for consideration before
this Court:
(i) Whether the petitioner, having participated in the
tender process with full knowledge of Clause 9 of the Request
for Proposal (RFP), can subsequently challenge the validity of
the said tender condition after being declared technically
disqualified?
(ii) Whether Clause 9 of the RFP, which disqualifies
bidders having prior association with Babasaheb Bhimrao
Ambedkar Bihar University, its constituent colleges or affiliated
colleges, is so arbitrary, irrational or violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India as to warrant interference by this Court
in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of
the Constitution?
Re.: Issue No. (i)
11. It is not in dispute that Clause 9 formed an integral
part of the Request for Proposal (RFP) issued under Tender
Notice No. BU/2026/02 dated 18.04.2026. The petitioner was
fully aware of the said condition prior to submission of its bid.
Despite such knowledge, the petitioner consciously chose to
participate in the tender process by submitting its bid along with
Patna High Court CWJC No.10081 of 2026 dt.22-07-2026
7/16
the requisite Earnest Money Deposit. It is only after the
petitioner’s bid was declared technically disqualified by
application of the very same clause that the present writ petition
came to be instituted challenging its validity.
12. The conduct of the petitioner, therefore, assumes
significance. A bidder who, with full knowledge of the terms
and conditions governing the tender, voluntarily participates in
the process and takes a calculated chance of being selected
cannot, upon an unfavourable outcome, turn around and assail
those very conditions. Such a course of action is contrary to the
well-settled doctrine of approbation and reprobation, which
prohibits a litigant from accepting and rejecting the same
transaction at different stages according to convenience.
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Lal v.
State of Jammu & Kashmir reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486,
while dealing with an analogous situation, held that where a
candidate takes a calculated chance by participating in a
selection process and thereafter finds the result to be
unfavourable, he cannot subsequently challenge the procedure
adopted. The Court observed that a candidate who consciously
participates in the process cannot be permitted to question it
only because the result has gone against him. The relevant para
Patna High Court CWJC No.10081 of 2026 dt.22-07-2026
8/16
of the said order reads as follows:
“9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep
in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as
the contesting successful candidates being
respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible
in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be
eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this
stage there is no dispute between the parties. The
petitioners also appeared at the oral interview
conducted by the Members concerned of the
Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well
as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the
petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected
at the said oral interview. Only because they did not
find themselves to have emerged successful as a
result of their combined performance both at written
test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It
is now well settled that if a candidate takes a
calculated chance and appears at the interview, then,
only because the result of the interview is not
palatable to him, he cannot turn round and
subsequently contend that the process of interview
was unfair or the Selection Committee was not
properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash
Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla it has been clearly
laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this
Court that when the petitioner appeared at the
examination without protest and when he found that
he would not succeed in examination he filed a
petition challenging the said examination, the High
Court should not have granted any relief to such a
petitioner.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.10081 of 2026 dt.22-07-2026
9/16
14. The principle is founded on equity and fair play.
Judicial review under Article 226 is a discretionary and
equitable jurisdiction. A litigant who voluntarily accepts the
terms of a tender, participates therein without protest and seeks
to secure the benefit flowing therefrom cannot be permitted to
“blow hot and cold”, or “approbate and reprobate”, by
challenging the very condition upon the failure of his bid.
Acceptance of such a course would render every unsuccessful
bidder entitled to question tender conditions after the result is
declared, thereby unsettling public procurement processes and
undermining certainty in contractual matters.
15. In the present case, the petitioner was aware of
Clause 9 at the time the RFP was issued. Despite asserting that
the clause was arbitrary, the petitioner nevertheless elected to
participate in the tender process without seeking any pre-bid
clarification or appropriate relief before submission of its bid.
Having consciously taken a chance of success under the terms
of the tender, the petitioner cannot now be permitted to assail
the very condition on the basis of which its bid came to be
evaluated merely because the outcome has been unfavourable.
16. Accordingly, Issue No. (i) is answered against the
petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10081 of 2026 dt.22-07-2026
10/16
Re.: Issue No. (ii)
17. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would
be apposite to reproduce Clause 9 of the “Important
Instructions” contained in the RFP, which reads as under:
“9. The bidder must not be associated with B.R.A.
Bihar University or any constituent college of
B.R.A.Bihar University or any affiliated college of
B.R.A.Bihar University for any work in past. A
deceleration in this regard to be submitted.”
18. The principal challenge of the petitioner is that the
aforesaid condition is arbitrary and discriminatory as it excludes
firms having prior association with the respondent University.
This Court, however, is unable to accept the said contention.
19. It is trite that the author of the tender is the best
judge of its requirements. The formulation of eligibility
conditions and qualification criteria falls within the realm of
administrative and commercial policy of the procuring entity.
Unless such conditions are shown to be manifestly arbitrary,
mala fide, tailor-made to favour or exclude a particular bidder,
or wholly devoid of any rational nexus with the object sought to
be achieved, the scope of judicial review remains extremely
limited.
20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Michigan Rubber
Patna High Court CWJC No.10081 of 2026 dt.22-07-2026
11/16
(India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka reported in (2012) 8 SCC
216, held that fixation of eligibility criteria lies primarily within
the domain of the tendering authority and the Court does not sit
as an appellate authority over such decisions. Interference is
warranted only where the process is found to be mala fide,
arbitrary or intended to favour a particular party. The relevant
para of the said order reads as follows:
“23. From the above decisions, the following
principles emerge:
(a) The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in
action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence
and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. These
actions are amenable to the judicial review only to
the extent that the State must act validly for a
discernible reason and not whimsically for any
ulterior purpose. If the State acts within the bounds
of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into
consideration the national priorities;
(b) Fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within
the purview of the executive and the courts hardly
have any role to play in this process except for
striking down such action of the executive as is
proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable. If the
Government acts in conformity with certain healthy
standards and norms such as awarding of contracts
by inviting tenders, in those circumstances, the
interference by courts is very limited;
(c) In the matter of formulating conditions of a
tender document and awarding a contract, greater
latitude is required to be conceded to the State
Patna High Court CWJC No.10081 of 2026 dt.22-07-2026
12/16authorities unless the action of the tendering
authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of its
statutory powers, interference by courts is not
warranted;
(d) Certain preconditions or qualifications for
tenders have to be laid down to ensure that the
contractor has the capacity and the resources to
successfully execute the work; and
(e) If the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably,
fairly and in public interest in awarding contract,
here again, interference by court is very restrictive
since no person can claim a fundamental right to
carry on business with the Government.
24. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or
contractual matters, in exercise of power of judicial
review, should pose to itself the following questions:
(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by
the authority is mala fide or intended to favour
someone; or whether the process adopted or decision
made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can
say: “the decision is such that no responsible
authority acting reasonably and in accordance with
relevant law could have reached”? And
(ii) Whether the public interest is affected?
If the answers to the above questions are in the
negative, then there should be no interference under
Article 226.”
21. The same principle has been reiterated in N.G.
Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain reported in (2022) 6 SCC
127, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that
Patna High Court CWJC No.10081 of 2026 dt.22-07-2026
13/16
constitutional courts ought to exercise great restraint in matters
concerning public tenders and should not substitute their own
views for that of the tendering authority merely because another
view is possible. The relevant para of the said order reads as
follows:
“23. In view of the above judgments of this Court,
the writ court should refrain itself from imposing its
decision over the decision of the employer as to
whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer. The
Court does not have the expertise to examine the
terms and conditions of the present day economic
activities of the State and this limitation should be
kept in view. Courts should be even more reluctant in
interfering with contracts involving technical issues
as there is a requirement of the necessary expertise
to adjudicate upon such issues. The approach of the
Court should be not to find fault with magnifying
glass in its hands, rather the Court should examine
as to whether the decision-making process is after
complying with the procedure contemplated by the
tender conditions. If the Court finds that there is
total arbitrariness or that the tender has been
granted in a mala fide manner, still the Court should
refrain from interfering in the grant of tender but
instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the
wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the
execution of the contract. The injunction or
interference in the tender leads to additional costs on
the State and is also against public interest.
Therefore, the State and its citizens suffer twice,
firstly by paying escalation costs and secondly, by
being deprived of the infrastructure for which the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10081 of 2026 dt.22-07-2026
14/16present day Governments are expected to work.”
22. Recently, in BLT EPC Ltd. v. Macawber Beekay
Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2024) 12 SCC 614, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, reaffirmed that even where the procuring entity is
“State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution,
judicial review in contractual matters is confined to examining
arbitrariness, mala fides, bias or irrationality and not the
commercial wisdom underlying the tender conditions. The
relevant para of the said order reads as follows:
“35. It is settled law that in contracts involving
complex technical issues, the Court should exercise
restraint in exercising the power of judicial review.
Even if a party to the contract is “State” within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, and as
such, is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High
Court or the Supreme Court, the Court should not
readily interfere in commercial or contractual
matters. This principle has been reiterated in a
recent judgment of this Court. J.B. Pardiwala, J.,
speaking for the Bench in Tata Motors Ltd. v. Brihan
Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport
Undertaking …”
23. Tested on the aforesaid principles, Clause 9 cannot
be said to be ex facie arbitrary or irrational. The respondent
University has prescribed a uniform condition applicable to
every intending bidder. The clause is neither confined to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10081 of 2026 dt.22-07-2026
15/16
petitioner nor has any material been brought on record to
demonstrate that it was incorporated with the object of
favouring any identified bidder or excluding the petitioner
alone. The condition has an intelligible basis, namely, to ensure
that the Chartered Accountant Firm engaged for providing
financial management and technical support services is free
from any prior association with the University or its constituent
or affiliated colleges, thereby maintaining institutional
independence and avoiding any actual or perceived conflict of
interest. Whether such a policy is the most appropriate or
whether a less restrictive alternative could have been adopted
are matters falling within the domain of the tendering authority
and not for judicial determination in exercise of powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution.
24. The petitioner’s contention that prior association
ought to have been treated as an advantage rather than a
disqualification essentially invites this Court to substitute its
own view for that of the procuring authority. Such an exercise is
impermissible in judicial review. So long as the condition is
founded upon a discernible rationale and applies uniformly to
all prospective bidders, the Court cannot invalidate it merely
because another policy choice may also have been reasonable.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10081 of 2026 dt.22-07-2026
16/16
25. Accordingly, Issue No. (ii) is also answered
against the petitioner.
26. In view of the findings recorded on Issue Nos. I
and II, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition.
27. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
dismissed.
28. Interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, ACJ)
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Sujit/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 29.07.2026 Transmission Date NA
