Patna High Court
Rajeev Ranjan Kumar, (Proprietor M/S ... vs The State Of Bihar on 4 August, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11231 of 2025
======================================================
Rajeev Ranjan Kumar, (Proprietor M/s R.K. Enterprises) aged about 37 years
(Male), Son of Lalan Prasad Yadav, Resident of Mohalla- Jogaulia Tola,
Rupani, P.S.- Madhuban District- East Champaran, Motihari.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.
4. The District Election Officer-Cum-District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, District-
Sitamarhi.
5. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi.
6. The Deputy Election Officer, Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brisketu Sharan Pandey, Advocate
For the ECI : Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General
Mr. Vikas Kumar, AC to AG
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 04-08-2025
Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset,
seeks permission to amend the prayer clause.
2. Permission, as prayed for, is granted.
3. The present petition has been filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, in which the petitioner has
prayed for quashing of the Notice Inviting Tender (for short
'NIT')/very short term tender dated 02.07.2025 issued by
respondent no. 4 for preparing voter list/electoral roll through
Patna High Court CWJC No.11231 of 2025 dt.04-08-2025
2/11
ERO-Net, revision of such voter list, revision and constant
upgradation of such list through data entry, scanning, uploading,
publishing checklist, publishing electoral roll/voter list and other
works relating to electoral roll/voter list for the eight Legislative
Assembly constituencies of the District-Sitamarhi.
3.1 The petitioner has also prayed that the
respondents be directed not to proceed with the aforesaid NIT.
4. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the
petitioner has also filed I.A. Nos. 01 of 2025 and 02 of 2025, by
which the petitioner has challenged another NIT dated
18.07.2025
for the same work as well as the NIT dated
19.07.2025 for the same work. The aforesaid two NITs were
issued after filing of the present petition, and therefore, by filing
separate IAs, such NITs were also challenged.
5. Heard Mr. Brisketu Sharan Pandey, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Advocate
General assisted by Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned AC to A.G. for
the State of Bihar and Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, learned counsel
for the Election Commission of India.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the
averments made in the memo of petition and thereafter
contended that respondent no. 4, on 19.06.2025, prior to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11231 of 2025 dt.04-08-2025
issuance of impugned NIT dated 02.07.2025, issued a similar
tender for the same purpose, i.e., for preparing voter
list/electoral roll through ERO-Net, revision of such voter list,
revision and constant upgradation of such list through data
entry, scanning, uploading, publishing checklist, publishing
electoral roll/voter list and other works relating to electoral
roll/voter list for the eight Legislative Assembly constituencies
of the District-Sitamarhi.
7. However, the said NIT was deliberately not
posted on the web portal of PRD or web portal with the link of
NIC website. It was posted only on the portal relating to
District-Sitamarhi. It is further submitted that objections were
raised by the bidders. Respondent no. 4 signed the impugned
NIT on 02.07.2025, and the same was published and brought to
the public domain on 05.07.2025.
8. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said
tender dated 02.07.2025 does not follow the Model Tender
Invitation in many aspects. Learned counsel submits that the
model tender, as provided by the Election Department, Bihar,
Patna, dated 25.01.2023 specifically provides the estimated
value of the tender; however, the tender invitation in question
does not mention the estimated value of the tender.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11231 of 2025 dt.04-08-2025
9. It is further contended that as per the model
tender, the security deposit amount has to be determined as 2%
of the estimated value. However, in the impugned tender
invitation notice, the amount of security deposit has been
determined as Rs. 1,00,000/- without mentioning any estimated
value.
10. Learned counsel would further contend that
even Bihar Finance (Amendment) Rules, 2005, in its Rule 131O
provides that the amount of bid security should ordinarily range
between 2% to 5% of the estimated value of the goods to be
procured.
11. Learned counsel, at this stage, also contended
that as per the model tender, it is mandatory to have a pre-tender
meeting nine days before the date of opening of the bid.
However, in the impugned NIT, no such provision for pre-tender
meeting has been made. At this stage, it is also contended that,
as per the model tender, the turnover of a tender participant has
been kept at Rs. 40,00,000/- per annum for the last three years.
However, in the impugned NIT, the minimum requirement of
turnover has been increased to Rs. 80,00,000/-. Learned
counsel, therefore, urged that the respondents have violated the
model tender as provided by the Election Department, Bihar,
Patna High Court CWJC No.11231 of 2025 dt.04-08-2025
Patna.
12. Learned counsel further submits that
representation has been made by the petitioner with regard to
the aforesaid, despite which no action has been taken by the
respondent-authorities and the respondents will proceed further
with the NIT in question. At this stage, it is further pointed out
that now the aforesaid NIT dated 02.07.2025 has been
cancelled, and thereafter once again similar type of NITs came
to be issued on 18.07.2025 and 19.07.2025. It is submitted that
the last date of the opening of the technical bid was 28.07.2025.
13. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that the
impugned NITs be quashed and direction be issued to the
respondents to follow the model tender notice.
14. On the other hand, learned Advocate General
has vehemently opposed the present petition. It has been mainly
contended that the petitioner is not an aggrieved person and, in
fact, he has not mentioned in the petition, as to how the
petitioner is affected by the impugned NITs issued by the
respondents. It is further contended that it appears that petitioner
is championing the cause for other persons. It is further
submitted that the model tender, upon which reliance is placed
by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is merely a model
Patna High Court CWJC No.11231 of 2025 dt.04-08-2025
guideline. However, it is for the concerned employer/authority
to prescribe the condition of tender and, therefore, it is not open
for the present petitioner to assail the impugned NITs.
15. Learned Advocate General would further
submit that the scope of interference, while exercising powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in such type of
matter is very limited.
16. Leaned Advocate General, therefore, urged that
the petition be dismissed.
17. We have considered the submissions canvassed
by the learned Advocates and perused the materials on record.
18. At the outset, we would like to refer to the
decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. Vs. AMR Dev Prabha &
Ors., reported in (2020) 16 SCC 759, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has observed in paragraph nos. 19 and 20 as under:
"19. The counsel for the appellant, along with that
for C1-India highlighted how the goalpost was
being changed by Respondent 1 throughout the
litigation. Whereas before the High Court AMR
Dev Prabha sought adherence to terms of NIT and
strict procedural compliance, but later they wished
to settle the matter at a lower price claiming larger
Patna High Court CWJC No.11231 of 2025 dt.04-08-2025
public interest. This was claimed to demonstrate
how AMR Dev Prabha's interest was, in fact,
personal and not public, and only to win the tender
one way or the other and not to maintain the
sanctity of the auction process. The lack of on-the-
spot protest, neither during the auction process,
nor at the time of availing refund of the earnest
money deposit; and the substantial delay in filing
the writ petition (after more than 3 months of close
of the auction process and 2 months from issue of
the LOA) was nothing but an afterthought aimed at
making a commercial opportunity out of litigation.
Hence, the present proceedings were claimed to be
an abuse of the process of law by AMR Dev Prabha
and only a chance for arm twisting BCCL to award
to it the tender, no better than a contractual
enforcement of private rights.
20. Instead, it was submitted, that any possible
infirmity was merely minor and inconsequential.
There had been a substantive compliance of the
tender process and the clauses of the notice
inviting tender ("NIT"), and public interest of
ensuring the lowest price discovery had been kept
at the forefront. It was contended that hyper
technical compliance was often not possible, nor
desirable as often-a-times strict procedural
compliance could defeat the ends of substantive
equality, like in the present case."
19. Similarly, in the case of Tata Motors Limited
Patna High Court CWJC No.11231 of 2025 dt.04-08-2025
Vs. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport
Undertaking (BEST) & Ors., reported in (2023) 19 SCC 1, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para-50 as under:
"50. This Court being the
guardian of fundamental rights is duty-bound to
interfere when there is arbitrariness, irrationality,
mala fides and bias. However, this Court has
cautioned time and again that courts should
exercise a lot of restraint while exercising their
powers of judicial review in contractual or
commercial matters. This Court is normally loathe
to interfere in contractual matters unless a clear-
cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides or bias or
irrationality is made out. One must remember that
today many public sector undertakings compete
with the private industry. The contracts entered
into between private parties are not subject to
scrutiny under writ jurisdiction. No doubt, the
bodies which are State within the meaning of
Article 12 of the Constitution are bound to act
fairly and are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of
superior courts but this discretionary power must
be exercised with a great deal of restraint and
caution. The courts must realise their limitations
and the havoc which needless interference in
commercial matters can cause. In contracts
involving technical issues the courts should be
even more reluctant because most of us in Judges'
robes do not have the necessary expertise to
Patna High Court CWJC No.11231 of 2025 dt.04-08-2025
adjudicate upon technical issues beyond our
domain. The courts should not use a magnifying
glass while scanning the tenders and make every
small mistake appear like a big blunder. In fact, the
courts must give "fair play in the joints" to the
government and public sector undertakings in
matters of contract. Courts must also not interfere
where such interference will cause unnecessary
loss to the public exchequer."
20. From the aforesaid decisions rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, it can be said that the Court should
exercise a lot of restraint while exercising powers of judicial
review in contractual or commercial matters. The Court is
normally loath to interfere in contractual matters, unless a clear-
cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides or bias or irrationality is
made out. While reviewing the decision making process, the
Court should not act as a court of appeal.
21. Keeping in view the aforesaid decisions
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the facts of the
present case are examined, it would reveal that on 02.07.2025,
impugned NIT came to be issued for the purpose of preparing
voter list, electoral roll through ERO-Net, and other related
matters. Thereafter, the same has been cancelled, and once
again, the same NITs were issued on 18.07.2025 and
Patna High Court CWJC No.11231 of 2025 dt.04-08-2025
19.07.2025. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that while issuing the NIT in question, the
respondents have not followed the Model Tender Invitation. It is
the specific contention taken by the learned Advocate General
that the Model Tender Invitation merely provides the guidelines
for issuance of the tender notice. However, it is for the
concerned respondent/authorities to prescribe the conditions of
tender.
22. We have gone through the impugned tender
notices issued by the respondent-authority; the same cannot be
termed as arbitrary or mala fide or irrational. It is for the
employer/authority to prescribe the conditions of the tender and
it appears that looking at the urgency of the matter, as the NIT in
question is related to the work in respect of voter list/electoral
roll/revision of voter list and its upgradation etc., the authority
has thought it fit to issue a short-term NIT by prescribing the
conditions therein.
23. We are of the view that this Court cannot sit in
appeal over the decision taken by the respondent-authority. We
are of the view that the scope of interference in such type of
contractual or commercial matters is very limited.
24. We are, therefore, of the view that no case is
Patna High Court CWJC No.11231 of 2025 dt.04-08-2025
made out by the petitioner to interfere with the same.
25. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
26. Interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed of.
(Vipul M. Pancholi, CJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Aditya/Pawan
AFR/NAFR A.F.R.
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 05.08.2025
Transmission Date N/A
