Patna High Court
Anand Mishra vs The State Of Bihar on 13 May, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3072 of 2025
======================================================
Anand Mishra S/o Umesh Mishra, Resident of Village Ramdas Bagahi, P.O.-
Bagahi Bazar, P.S.- Kateya, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. Local Area Engineering Organization, Bihar at Patna through its Chief
Engineer.
3. The Executive Engineer, Local Area Engineering Organization, Bihar at
Patna.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Local Area Engineering Organization, Bihar
at Patna.
5. The Executive Engineer, Local Area Engineering Organization, Gopalganj
Bihar.
6. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Presently the Chief Engineer, Local Area Engineering
Organization, Bihar at Visvesvaraya Bhawan, Patna.
7. Renu Devi, W/o Not Known, R/o Mhavir Mandir Road, Nepali Nagar,
Ashiyana, Patna PIN Code- 800025.
8. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Abhilasha Jha, Advocate
Mr.Kumar Harshvardhan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Vikas Kumar, AC to A.G.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 13-05-2025
Heard Ms. Abhilasha Jha, learned Advocate for
the petitioner and Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned Advocate for
the State.
2. The petitioner and Respondent No. 7 had
Patna High Court CWJC No.3072 of 2025 dt.13-05-2025
participated in the bid floated by the concerned authority for
construction of Panchayat Bhawan.
3. It appears that both the petitioner and
Respondent No. 7 were declared to be technically
responsive. However, the petitioner doubted the credentials
of Respondent No. 7 and raised an objection about her
having been wrongly declared to be technically responsive.
4. The complaint by the petitioner was placed
before the Committee, which re-evaluated the bids of the
petitioner and Respondent No. 7; made a comparison in a
tabular form and found that both the petitioner and
Respondent No. 7 were technically responsive.
5. The writ petition does not state whether the
financial bids were opened.
6. The petitioner is not listed below Respondent
no. 7; rather both of them have been found to be technically
responsive.
7. We have not been able to understand as to why
such an objection has been raised by the petitioner.
8. In any view of the matter, Ms. Jha has
submitted that when the complaint of the petitioner was
Patna High Court CWJC No.3072 of 2025 dt.13-05-2025
being considered, the petitioner should have been heard.
9. We find such objection to be untenable for the
reason that the entire objection of the petitioner was placed
before the Committee, which not only re-evaluated the
decision with respect to Respondent No. 7 but also the
petitioner and found that both of them were technically
responsive.
10. In that view of the matter, we find no ground
for us to interfere with the decision of the Committee
holding both the petitioner and respondent no. 7 to be
technically responsive.
11. The writ petition stands dismissed.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Sujit/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 14.05.2025
Transmission Date NA
