Patna High Court
M/S Mahavir Construction vs The State Of Bihar on 13 February, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6670 of 2024
======================================================
M/s Mahavir Construction having its Registered Office at Chauthiya, Taripar,
Maner Telpa, Bikram, Patna, through its Proprietor, Amit Kumar, Male, aged
about 40 years, S/o Siyaram Singh, resident of Maner Telpa, P.S. Bikram,
District Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Minor Water Resources
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Engineer in Chief, Minor Water Resources Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer, Minor Water Resources Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
4. The Superintending Engineer cum Technical Secretary, Minor Water
Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Gaya, Bihar.
6. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Jehanabad, District
Jehanabad, Bihar.
7. M/s. Hariom Services, Lakhibagh, Manpur, P.S. Muffasil, District Gaya,
Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prabhat Ranjan, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Advocate General
Mr. Vikash Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 13-02-2025
Heard Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, the learned
Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Vikash Kumar, the
learned Advocate for the State.
2. The petitioner came up before this Court
Patna High Court CWJC No.6670 of 2024 dt.13-02-2025
2/4
aggrieved by the decision of the respondents in allotting
the work concerned to respondent no. 7/M/s Hariom
Services, Lakhibag, Manpur, P.S. Muffasil, District -
Gaya.
3. The work related to renovation of Pokhma
Payne Irrigation Scheme.
4. The contention of the petitioner is that the
complaint made against the petitioner by respondent no.
7 regarding his not fulfilling the technical conditions, was
accepted whereas the complaint lodged by the petitioner
against respondent no. 7 was brushed aside lightly. It was
alleged that the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee on
09.02.2024
had found the petitioner's bid to be
technically unresponsive. It was only thereafter
complaints and counter complaints were made by the
parties and by others as well. It was ultimately found that
the petitioner's bid did not qualify the tender conditions
especially with respect to the documents concerning
equipments relating to dozer machines as the documents
Patna High Court CWJC No.6670 of 2024 dt.13-02-2025
furnished were not found to be in consonance with the
requirement of Clause- 2.1 of Clause -22 of the notice
inviting tender.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the
whole process was speeded up for helping and allotting
work to respondent no. 7, who too had offered deficient
tender papers.
6. Nonetheless, we have found from the
supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the State that
98% of the work has already been completed, which
statement has been made after its confirmation by the
Chief Engineer of the project.
7. The complaint of the petitioner was but sent
for an internal vigilance inquiry and a three member
committee appears to have been constituted to look into
the allegation against the Technical Bid Evaluation
Committee and the other authorities of the State, in not
observing the rules of tender and thus not acting fairly in
concluding contract with private parties, to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6670 of 2024 dt.13-02-2025
disadvantage of many including the petitioner.
8. Mr. Prabhat Ranjan has also informed this
Court that the inquiry has ended and the report perhaps
indicates that necessary safeguards while awarding
contract was not followed by the authorities.
9. However, considering the fact that 98% of
work has already been finished by now, we do not wish to
interfere or pass any order in this writ petition, except for
observing that in case the vigilance report is tabled before
the concerned authority, it must be taken into account
and necessary corrective measures be adopted for future
contracts.
10. The writ petition stands disposed of.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
( Partha Sarthy, J)
sunilkumar/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 17.02.2025
Transmission Date NA
