Patna High Court
Brajesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 27 February, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.956 of 2025
======================================================
1. Brajesh Kumar S/o Ramnandan Sharma, R/o village - Sahganj, P.S. - Konch,
District- Gaya.
2. Vijay Prasad Gupta, S/o Ramratan Saw, R/o village- Mahaddipur, P.S. -
Upahara, District - Aurangabad.
3. Naresh Prajapat, S/o Bhagwan Prajapat, R/o Village - Kariyadpur, P.S. -
Fatehpur, District- Gaya.
4. Ranju Devi, W/o Vijay Kumar, R/o village- Chandisthan, P.S. - Amas,
District- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.
Khadya Bhawan, Daroga Rai Path No. 2, Patna - 1.
3. The Program Manager, 4G Identity Solution Pvt. Ltd. Nigam Headquarter,
Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate cum Chairman District Transport Committee, Gaya.
5. The District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd,
Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG-4
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 27-02-2025
The writ petitioners are aggrieved by the order
dated 30.12.2024 passed by the District Manager, State
Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Gaya
whereby the bid of the petitioners has been rejected for
their not having entered into any agreement with the
Food Corporation and consequent forfeiture of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.956 of 2025 dt.27-02-2025
earnest money of Rs.1,50,000/-.
2. It appears from the records as also from the
order impugned that the petitioners were selected as
successful candidates, having passed the technical and
financial rigors of the bid. They were asked to execute an
agreement with the organisation for work order. They
failed to do so.
3. There is nothing on record also to indicate
that they had asked for any extension of time.
4. Precisely for this reason, the selection of the
petitioners as successful bidders was cancelled and the
earnest money was forfeited.
5. Clause 18 of the bid paper clearly indicates
that the tender money (earnest money) of Rs.1,50,000/-
would be refundable in case of unsuccessful bidder but
would be liable to be forfeited in case of successful
bidder, failing to execute the agreement.
6. The petitioners have clearly failed to execute
the agreement without showing any bonafide cause. Such
a clause in tender papers is included for the reason of
Patna High Court CWJC No.956 of 2025 dt.27-02-2025
giving finality to the decision regarding selection of
concessionaires. Non-execution of agreement consequent
to the petitioners having been chosen as successful
bidders, has only delayed the process of work.
7. This is the reason why the bidders were
made known that in case they failed to execute the
agreement after being chosen as successful bidders, their
earnest amount shall be forfeited.
8. The order impugned is quite in consonance
with the conditions in the tender papers.
9. No good ground has been made out by the
writ petitioners for any interference.
10. The petition is dismissed.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
( Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/Rajesh
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 28.02.2025
Transmission Date
