Patna High Court
Satyendra Prasad @ Satyendra Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 5 May, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18973 of 2024
======================================================
Satyendra Prasad @ Satyendra Kumar Son of Dayanidhi Prasad Resident of
village- Mirdahachak, Poari, Nalanda, P.S.- Harnaut, District- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Water Resources
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar,
Bihar Sharif
4. The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Nalanda, Bihar Sharif
5. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Jahanabad
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Narain, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Gaurav Prakash, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K.Shahi, Advocate General
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 05-05-2025
Heard Mr. Rajendra Narain, the learned Senior
Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Shahi, the
learned Advocate General for the respondents/State.
2. The challenge in the present petition is to
the decision of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division,
Patna High Court CWJC No.18973 of 2024 dt.05-05-2025
Jehanabad whereby the entire short term tender for
auction of clapped out goods and machines has been
withdrawn for re-tendering.
3. A decision was taken to dispose off the old
and unused plants and machinery of the department and
the price of the same was assessed at approximately Rs.
11 and a half lacs. It was decided to put those items to
auction sale. For the aforesaid purpose, a short term
auction tender was issued, attracting 47 participants. The
base amount was fixed at Rs.11,69,213/-. The security
deposit of Rs.2,92,400/- was to be furnished by each of
the participants.
4. The bidder who came out with the highest
price, back-tracked, abandoning his security deposit. The
petitioner stood second as he had offered Rs.15,10,000/-
for the goods.
5. A direction then was sought by the
Executive Engineer from the Superintending Engineer
whether the petitioner as H2 could be accepted as the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18973 of 2024 dt.05-05-2025
successful bidder. The Superintending Engineer left the
matter to the discretion of the Executive Engineer, who
ultimately decided, for the reason of the big difference in
the price offered by H1 and the petitioner, to cancel the
entire tender and go for re-tendering.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that one of the clauses of the Notice Inviting
Tender is that in the event of the highest bidder not
depositing the amount within a particular period of time
would lose his deposit and the bid of the second highest
bidder could be accepted.
7. Based on this, as also on the principle of
legitimate expectation, the petitioner has challenged the
aforenoted decision of recalling the tender for the
purposes of re-tendering, only on the ground of the
expectation of the State to get more revenue out of those
unused/clapped out plants and machinery.
8. True it is that mere expectation of
garnering larger revenue by the State cannot solely be
Patna High Court CWJC No.18973 of 2024 dt.05-05-2025
the reason for cancelling a tender in its entirety, but, in
the present case, considering the difference between the
price offered by H1 and the petitioner, a conscious
decision was taken by the Executive Engineer to go for re-
tender. The reason is to protect the finances of the State.
9. Very recently, the Supreme Court in Special
Leave Petition(C) No(s). 12353-12355 of 2021 (The
Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Ors. vs.
Suresh Mathew & Ors.) has held that the Government
is the protector of financial resources of the State and it
has every right to cancel and call for fresh tender if it is in
the nature of protecting the financial interest of the State.
10. There is nothing in the impugned order
which reflects that another tender would not be issued or
there would be any proscription on the petitioner
participating in the said bid.
11. In that view of the matter, we do not find
any reason to interfere with the decision of the Executive
Engineer in recalling the entire tender for the purposes of
Patna High Court CWJC No.18973 of 2024 dt.05-05-2025
re-tendering for auction of goods.
12. The petition is dismissed.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/Rajesh
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 06.05.2025
Transmission Date NA
