Patna High Court
Gomatee Infrastructure Through Its ... vs The State Of Bihar on 14 May, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3842 of 2025
======================================================
Gomatee Infrastructure through its Proprietor Renu Devi, Female, aged about
55 years, Wife of Shyam Dev Sah, Resident of Dholbajja, Ward No. 04, P.S.
Forbesganj, District Araria, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Works
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Engineer In-Chief, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer -4, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Circle
Kishanganj, Bihar.
5. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division
Forbesganj, District Araria, Bihar.
6. The Member Secretary cum Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department,
Works Division, Araria, District Araria, Bihar.
7. The Pawat Construction Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at Maulabagh,
Ara, P.O. and P S Nawada, District Bhojpur through its Director Bijay
Kumar Yadav
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG-4
Mr. Alok Kumar Rahi, AC to AAG-4
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Patna High Court CWJC No.3842 of 2025 dt.14-05-2025
Date : 14-05-2025
Heard Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, learned Advocate for
the petitioner and Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned AAG-4 for the
State.
2. The petitioner has challenged the decision of the
Technical Bid Evaluation Committee (for brevity 'the
Committee'), whereby even when it was pointed out by the
petitioner that Respondent No. 7 had not complied with the
bid conditions, Respondent No. 7 has been declared to be
technically responsive.
3. It appears from the arguments as also the
records of this case that eight of the bidders were found to
be technically responsive and their financial bids were to be
opened later. Before that, an objection was lodged by the
petitioner against all other bidders on various grounds.
Based on the objection lodged by the petitioner, the
Committee re-evaluated the bids of the participants and
found some of them to be technically un-responsive,
whereas others, including the petitioner, were found to be
responsive.
4. The petitioner has made a special mention of
Patna High Court CWJC No.3842 of 2025 dt.14-05-2025
Respondent No. 7 was, even in re-evaluation held to be
responsive.
5. The petitioner submits that no reason has been
assigned for that decision despite specific objection against
the Respondent No. 7 of not having annexed the audit
report of preceding five years.
6. We find the averments in the writ petition to be
lacking in two respects. The tender document specifying the
requirements which a bidder has to fulfill, has not been
brought on record and the intent of the petitioner to
eliminate competition by making objection against rest all
bidders appears to be very stark.
7. The petitioner became successful in getting the
names of few of the bidders put in the list of technically un-
responsive bidders, but then, we are firmly of the view that
this forum is not to be used for eliminating competition and
subserving the own interest of one of the bidders.
8. In any view of the matter, since it has not been
brought on record as to which condition was not complied
with by Respondent No. 7, we refuse to interfere with the
decision making in the re-evaluation by the Committee.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3842 of 2025 dt.14-05-2025
9. The writ petition is dismissed.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Sujit/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 15.05.2025
Transmission Date NA
