Patna High Court
Samrat Buildtech India Pvt Ltd 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.4245 of 2025
======================================================
Samrat Buildtech India Pvt Ltd. having its Registered Office at Kolhay Patty,
Murliganj, Madhepura, through its Authorized Signatory Sumit Kumar, aged
about 40 Years, Male, Son of Surendra Singh, Resident of Road No. 2, Vikash
Colony, Sandalpur Road Kumhrar, P.S. Alamganj, District-Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Planning and
Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Engineer in Chief, Planning and Development Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer, Local Area Engineering Organization, Patna, Bihar.
4. The Executive Engineer, Local Area Engineering Organization, Works
Division, Saharsa, District-Saharsa, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General
Mr. Vikas Kumar, A.C. to AG
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 14-05-2025
Heard Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, learned Advocate for
the petitioner and Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4245 of 2025 dt.14-05-2025
State.
2. The petitioner was initially declared to be
technically responsive. However, on a complaint by another
bidder, there was a re-evaluation and the petitioner was then
found to be unresponsive for the reason that he had
suppressed the information of his registration having been
suspended earlier under the provisions of the Bihar
Contractors Registration Rules, 2007.
3. While assailing the aforenoted decision of the
Technical Evaluation Committee, Mr. Prabhat Ranjan,
learned Advocate has referred to the requirement under the
tender papers of filing a requisite affidavit which mandated
that a bidder had to certify that his firm had never been
blacklisted nor had it abandoned any work in any
Government department in India or any contract awarded to
the company for such works was rescinded during the last
five years prior to the date of the bid.
4. Taking this content of the affidavit, as provided
in the tender paper, Mr. Ranjan submits that suspension of
registration, blacklisting, abandoning of the allotted work,
recission of contract are though cognate, but essentially
Patna High Court CWJC No.4245 of 2025 dt.14-05-2025
different as the impact of all such punitive measures are
different. The petitioner had only filed an affidavit on the
basis of the proforma affidavit supplied in the tender paper.
Thus, not mentioning in the affidavit about his registration
having been suspended in the year 2022 ought not to be
treated as any suppression of fact.
5. We do not agree with the aforenoted
submission.
6. The purpose of filing such affidavit is to make
the authority know about the background and the earlier
performance of a bidder. Suspension is a punitive measure
inflicted upon a defaulting contractor.
7. True it is that the proforma affidavit provided in
the tender paper does not mention that it would be required
of the bidder to state about suspension of the registration
also; but we find that it would only amount to nitpicking in
the decision making process. The petitioner's registration
had been suspended for his having defaulted in the work
allotted to him. This entitles the respondents to reject the
bid of the petitioner as being unresponsive to the
requirements of the tender documents.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4245 of 2025 dt.14-05-2025
8. There is no merit in the petition.
9. The writ petition is dismissed.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
P.K.P./-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 15.05.2025
Transmission Date
