Patna High Court
Harilal Ventures Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Bihar on 6 May, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6027 of 2025
======================================================
Harilal Ventures Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director, Amit Mankani,
Male, aged about 50 years, S/o Late Shri Harilal Mankani, having its
registered office at Plot No. IV/06, Patliputra Industrial Area, Patliputra, Patna
and a resident of House No. A-27, Hari Villa 5, Buddha Colony, Near Hospito
India, P.S.-Buddha Colony, Boring Canal Road, Patna-1.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Building Construction Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Chief Engineer (Patna), Building Construction Department, Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Superintending Engineer, South Bihar Circle, Building Construction
Department, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Executive Engineer, Patna Building Division, Building Construction
Department, Patna.
5. The Assistant Engineer, Samrat Ashok Convention Kendra Lower Division,
Patna Building Division, Patna.
6. Amrapali Banquets Pvt. Ltd. A company registered under the Companies
Act, 1956 having its registered office at Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path,
R-Block, Patna, through its Director, Jitendra Nath Gupta, S/o Mahendra
Nath Gupta, a resident of House No. 11, Basant Vihar Colony, Opposite
Laxmi Complex, Boring Road, Patna-800001.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Nitesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Ayush Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Kanishka Shankar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vivek Prasad, G.P.-7
For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sanket, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 06-05-2025
Patna High Court CWJC No.6027 of 2025 dt.06-05-2025
2/10
Heard Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Senior Advocate
for the petitioner and Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned Senior
Advocate for the Respondent No. 6. The State is
represented by Mr. Vivek Prasad, learned Government
Pleader No. 7.
2. The petitioner has demanded quashing of the
entire tender process relating to Notice Inviting Tender (for
short 'NIT') dated 07.02.2024 seeking agency for
outsourcing of the restaurant in Samrat Ashok Convention
Centre, perhaps on the ground that the re-tender in this
instance was not authorized under the Bihar Financial
Rules, 1950 (As amended by Amendment Rules, 2016),
particularly Rule 131J(c) thereof, which reads as
hereunder:-
"131J(c) After evaluating the technical bids
received by the purchaser department by the
competent committee or authority, if only
one tender remains or no tender is received
in the first bid for evaluation of financial bid
then re-tender shall be invited for it
immediately. If after inviting re-tender also,
only one tender remains for evaluation of
financial bid after technical evaluation, then
Patna High Court CWJC No.6027 of 2025 dt.06-05-2025
3/10
the matter will be disposed off by the
authority of one level above of the competent
authority".
3. The short facts for disposal of this writ petition
are that for selecting a restaurateur to manage the restaurant
belonging to the respondent/State, located in Samrat Ashok
Convention Centre, a tender was floated attracting three
participants including the petitioner and Respondent No. 6.
Since their bids could not be evaluated within the validity
period of the tender, the tender had to be recalled.
4. A re-tender was made vide NIT dated
07.02.2024
in which only the petitioner and Respondent
No. 6 participated. Since the petitioner was found to be
technically unresponsive, Respondent No. 6 remained the
sole person who cleared the technical evaluation and the
agreement was concluded with him after his financial bid
was evaluated and found to be responsive.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
submits that in this instance also, with only Respondent No.
6 having remained in the fray, the NIT ought to have been
recalled and a fresh tender was required to be issued.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6027 of 2025 dt.06-05-2025
6. The condition under Rule 131J(c) for selecting
even a single bidder in the re-tender gets attracted only if in
the first tender, no bidder appears or only one bidder
remains in the fray and not in every case of re-tender.
7. In the present case, Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned
Senior Advocate has argued that the first tender could not
be brought to logical conclusion for the reason of expiry of
the validity period before which the bids could not be
evaluated. Thus, for all practical purposes, the re-tender
dated 07.02.2024 was a fresh tender and, therefore, in this
instance, if only one bidder remained in the fray after
technical evaluation, the contract should not have been
concluded with him; rather this procurement of service
should have been subjected to a further re-tender.
8. Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned Senior Advocate
has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of
the writ petition; not perhaps on the issue raised by the
petitioner but primarily on the conduct of the petitioner. He
has pointed out that the Technical Evaluation Committee
found the bid of the petitioner to be unresponsive on
05.07.2024. The petitioner was permitted to file his
Patna High Court CWJC No.6027 of 2025 dt.06-05-2025
objection within a period of seven days. No objection was
filed by him till 12.07.2024 i.e. till the expiry of seven days.
The financial bid of the Respondent No. 6 was then sent to
the Departmental Tender Committee on 18.07.2024 with
Respondent No. 6 as the sole bidder. On 17.10.2024, the
Departmental Tender Committee found Respondent No. 6
to be the highest bidder. He was then directed to deposit Rs.
3,21,550/- as advance rent.
9. The petitioner but had been serving as the
restaurateur earlier.
10. He was asked by the authorities to vacate the
premises in favour of Respondent No. 6.
11. The petitioner then filed a writ petition vide
CWJC No. 17150 of 2024 challenging the direction to him
to vacate the leased premises in favour of Respondent No.
6, but did not elect to implead Respondent No. 6. The writ
petition was filed without the necessary averment of the
petitioner having participated in the tender process and
having been found unsuccessful at the technical stage itself.
However, the petitioner, it has been argued, was able to
procure a stay order on 13.11.2024. When Respondent No.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6027 of 2025 dt.06-05-2025
6 came to know of this, an Interlocutory Application was
filed by him in the aforenoted writ petition (CWJC No.
17150 of 2024) seeking his impleadment as an intervenor,
which was allowed and ultimately the writ petition was
dismissed on 20.03.2025. The petitioner, it has further been
argued, did not even readily agree to make payments of the
rental dues against him.
12. The present writ petition was filed on
08.04.2025 and on the very next day, an MJC petition was
filed by the petitioner for modification of the order dated
20.03.2025 passed in CWJC No. 17150 of 2024 to the
extent of seeking extension of time for vacating the
premises and modification of the direction with regard to
the arrear rental demand by the respondent authorities.
13. That MJC application was not filed with all the
documents and hence, it was listed for 'Orders on Office
Notes' for removal of defects. The Respondent No. 6
appeared in that MJC suo motu.
14. It was only on 20.04.2025 that the premises
was vacated and handed over to Respondent No. 6, as
directed by the Writ Court. The MJC petition, referred to
Patna High Court CWJC No.6027 of 2025 dt.06-05-2025
above, has not yet been listed before the Court, which in all
its probability, has lost its force and has become
infructuous.
15. The second of the arguments advanced on
behalf of the Respondent No. 6 is that Rule 131J(c) of the
Bihar Financial Rules, 1950 is with respect to adopting a
'Two bid system' for purchasing high value plant,
machinery etc. of a complex and technical nature and not
for procurement of service or outsourcing of the agency for
running a restaurant which is covered by Rule 131U, which
deals with procurement of services.
16. Even otherwise, it has been submitted on
behalf of Respondent No. 6 that it may not be necessary that
only in such cases of re-tender, which has been necessitated
because of only one bidder remaining in fray in the first
tender, would there be any requirement of recalling the re-
tender for the reason of one bidder remaining in fray. What
he harps upon is that in all cases of re-tender, for whichever
reason, the authorities would be perfectly within their rights
to go for concluding the contract even if there is one bidder
in the fray, who passes the muster of technical and financial
Patna High Court CWJC No.6027 of 2025 dt.06-05-2025
requirements.
17. Contending the aforenoted argument, Mr. Lalit
Kishore submitted that the facts narrated by Respondent
No. 6 is more in the nature of an ad hominem attack on his
person, but the interpretation given of Rule 131J(c) of the
Bihar Financial Rules, 1950 is not acceptable for the reason
that the words used in the Rules are absolutely clear that
only in the event of a re-tender because of the first tender
not attracting any bidder or only one bidder remaining in
the fray, the authorities could go for finalizing the tender
with the sole bidder in the re-tender. Not in every case of
re-tender would this liberty be available with the
respondents/department for concluding the contract with a
single bidder.
18. There could be instances, Mr. Lalit Kishore,
argues, where on account of technical fault, a tender is
withdrawn. In that event, any re-tender would more be in
the nature of a fresh tender where it would not be safe to
conclude the tender process even when only one bidder
remains in the fray.
19. After having heard the learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6027 of 2025 dt.06-05-2025
parties, we find that the petitioner had been running the
restaurant on behalf of the Government for the last several
years. In the tender process which was conducted, the
petitioner could not succeed because he was found to be
technically unresponsive. He did not raise any objection
with respect to the decision of the Technical Evaluation
Committee within the window provided to him. It was only
after nine months that the entire process was challenged on
the plea of violation of Rule 131J(c) of the Bihar Financial
Rules, 1950, which may not be permissible.
20. The petitioner having participated in the tender
process and having been declared technically unresponsive,
cannot turn around and challenge the very process on the
ground that in the re-tender, single bidder's paper ought not
to have been accepted. He had the occasion to raise his
objection within seven days of the opening of the technical
bid which he did not.
21. Apart from this, we find that the conduct of the
petitioner has been, all through, questionable. He has
attempted to hoodwink the entire process of selection of the
restaurateur which has only delayed the conclusion of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6027 of 2025 dt.06-05-2025
contract in favour of Respondent No. 6.
22. For the reason of the conduct of the petitioner
as also for the reason that Rule 131J(c) of the Bihar
Financial Rules, 1950 would not strictly apply to the present
case where the tender was for selecting an agency for
outsourcing a restaurant, we find the writ petition to be
utterly lacking in merits.
23. The writ petition is, thus, dismissed.
24. Cost easy.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
P.K.P./Avinash
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 07.05.2025
Transmission Date
