Patna High Court
M/S M.K Gupta And Co vs The State Of Bihar on 15 May, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3921 of 2025
======================================================
M/s M.K Gupta and Co. through its authorized representative Gautam Banik,
male, aged about 62 years, S/o- Gour Gopal Banik, R/o - Mohalla- Dudh
More, Atul Prasad Sarani, Ward no. - 15, P.O. and P.S. - Siliguri, District -
Dajeeling, State - West Bengal, having registered office at Mohalla - Metro
Heights, 2nd Floor, Opposite Akshaytara Apartment, 2.5 mile, Sevoke Road,
Siliguri, West Bengal, Pin- 734001.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary Rural Works
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary Rural Works Department Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Engineer-in-chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special
Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Superinteding Engineer Rural works Department, work Circle,
Kishanganj.
5. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Division,
Kishanganj- 2.
6. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Division, Araria.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Ranjan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vivek Anand Amritesh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 15-05-2025
We have heard Mr. Alok Ranjan, the learned
counsel for the petitioner and Vivek Anand Amritesh, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3921 of 2025 dt.15-05-2025
learned Advocate for the State.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of
the Technical Evaluation Committee of the Rural Works
Department (RWD) holding the petitioner to be technically
non-responsive because of his registration with the RWD
having expired on the date when the evaluation was made.
3. It appears that against the tender floated by
the RWD, the petitioner and others had participated. The
petitioner fulfilled all conditions of the tender document,
except the fact that his registration with the RWD had
expired. The condition enumerated in Clause 14 of the SBD
indicates that qualified bidders would be required to be
registered with RWD (if not already registered) before
signing of agreement.
4. With respect to the afore-noted clause in the
tender paper, Mr. Alok Ranjan has argued that the
disqualification of the petitioner is based on wrong premise.
All that was required by any bidder to fulfill was that before
the agreement, he should have been registered with the
RWD, if not already registered.
5. The records reveal that the petitioner was
Patna High Court CWJC No.3921 of 2025 dt.15-05-2025
registered with the RWD, but such registration had expired.
6. This could have been taken note of by the
respondents only before the signing of the agreement and
that occasion would have come only when the petitioner
would have been found to be technically responsive on all
other counts.
7. Thus, it has been asserted by the petitioner
that non-suiting him at this stage was only because of the
wrong interpretation/gloss given over Clause 14 of the
terms and conditions of the tender documents.
8. The learned counsel for the State, however,
submits that at the time of technical evaluation, the
registration of the petitioner with the RWD had expired.
9. We have already noted that this is not the
condition in the tender papers.
10. Considering this aspect of the matter, we
quash the decision of the Tender Evaluation Committee of
RWD, so far as the petitioner is concerned, and direct for
reconsideration of the bid of the petitioner.
11. In case, the petitioner comes out successful,
it would be seen at the time of agreement whether the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3921 of 2025 dt.15-05-2025
petitioner has his registration with RWD.
12. With the afore-noted direction, the writ
petition stands disposed off.
13. Interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also
stand closed.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Sauravkrsinha/
Sujit-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 16.05.2025
Transmission Date NA
