[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Plas Radha Int Udyog vs The State Of Bihar on 13 May, 2026
Author: Sudhir Singh
Bench: Sudhir Singh, Shailendra Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16757 of 2023
======================================================
PLAS RADHA INT UDYOG, Village and P.O. Bhadai, P.S. Hathauri,
District-Muzaffarpur through the Proprietor Radha Raman (Male) aged about-
48 Years, Son of Ram Pravesh Singh, Resident of Village and P.S. Bhadai,
P.S. Hathauri, District-Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary-Cum-Commisioner, Department of Mines
and Geology, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director Mines, Department of Mines and geology, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, District-Muzaffarpur.
5. The Mineral Development Officer Muzaffarpur, District-Muzaffarpur.
6. The District Mines Officer, Muzaffarpur, District-Muzaffarpur.
7. Somya Construction, Shanti Kunj, 2nd Floor, Near Dhan Laxmi Complex,
O.P. Thakur Nagar, T.S. Bus Stand, N.H. 105, Thakkar Nagar, Ahmedabad,
Gujarat.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, Advocate
For the Mines & Geology : Mr. Naresh Dixit, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Date : 13-05-2026
Patna High Court CWJC No.16757 of 2023 dt.13-05-2026
2/15
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The following reliefs have been sought in the present
writ application:
"(I) For issuance of an appropriate writ
in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the
letter dated 25.09.2023 issued under the
signature of the Respondent no.3 and contained
in his memo no.4832 dated 25.09.2023,whereby
and where under he has been pleased to direct
the Respondent no.4 to take further action in
relation to the auction of Sand Ghat of Budhi
Gandak and Bagmati River Group No.4 since no
irregularity has been found in the process of
auction of the aforesaid Sand Ghat.
(II) For issuance of an appropriate writ
in the nature of MANDAMUS, commanding and
directing the Respondent Authorities to produce
on record the selection of Respondent no.7 for
settlement of two Balu Ghats of Gandak and
Bagmati River under Group No.4 of Notice
Inviting e-auction for settlement of Sand Ghats
and on production the same may be quashed by
issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of
CERTIORARI on the ground that until the last
time for auction i.e. 2.00 P.M. if the petitioner as
the highest bidder, the Respondents are not
justified to accept the offer of the Respondent
no.7 if the highest offer was made by him but
after expiry of the last time to make any offer.
(III) For issuance of an appropriate writ
in the nature of MANDAMUS, commanding and
directing the Respondent Authorities for
allotment of above mentioned Sand Ghat to the
petitioner on the ground that until the schedule
time for auction, the petitioner was the highest
bidder for Group No.4 whereas the highest offer
of Respondent no.7 was since received at 2.00.30
Patna High Court CWJC No.16757 of 2023 dt.13-05-2026
3/15
P.M. of 26.12.2022 i.e. 30 seconds after the last
time schedule for auction, the Respondents
cannot accept the offer of Respondent no.7.
(IV) For issuance of any other
appropriate writ/ writs order/ orders,
direction/directions for which the writ petitioner
would be found entitled under the facts and
circumstances of the case."
3. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ
application are that an e-auction was conducted by the
authorities for settlement of two sand ghats pursuant to a notice
published on 16.12.2022 in the daily Hindi newspaper
"Hindustan." As per the terms and conditions of the notice
inviting e-auction, the auction was scheduled to be held on
26.12.2022
from 11:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M., with a provision for
extension by one hour in the event any bid was made within the
last five minutes of the stipulated period. It is the case of the
petitioner that out of the three technically qualified bidders, only
two bidders participated in the auction, and upon a bid being
made at 12:59:56 P.M., the auction stood extended till 2:00 P.M.
According to the petitioner, during the extended period, it is
alleged that the last bid of Rs. 1,37,21,400/- at 1:47:56 P.M., was
submitted by him and no further bids were made within the
stipulated time.
4. It is further the case of the petitioner that Respondent
No. 7 submitted a bid of Rs. 1,56,27,150/- at 2:00:30 P.M., i.e.,
Patna High Court CWJC No.16757 of 2023 dt.13-05-2026
30 seconds after the closure of the auction, and therefore, the
said bid could not have been accepted by the authorities.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
acceptance of the bid of Respondent No. 7 is contrary to the
terms and conditions governing the e-auction process, inasmuch
as the said bid was made beyond the prescribed closing time. It
is submitted that once the auction stood closed, no subsequent
bid could legally be entertained and any acceptance thereof
would render the process arbitrary and violative of the
conditions of the auction process.
6. It is further submitted that despite objections being
raised by the petitioner immediately after the auction process,
the respondents proceeded to validate the auction in favour of
Respondent No. 7 without conducting any proper enquiry in the
presence of the petitioner and without affording any opportunity
of hearing. It is thus submitted that the impugned action is
violative of the principles of natural justice and lacks
transparency.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that upon receipt of the objection raised by the
petitioner, the authorities did not proceed with the allotment
process and, on the contrary, directed an enquiry into the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16757 of 2023 dt.13-05-2026
grievance raised by the petitioner. It is submitted that a scrutiny
committee consisting of technical and administrative officials
was constituted to examine the entire e-auction process,
including the system- generated logs and bidding timelines, and
the committee, upon examination of records, found no
irregularity in the process.
8. It is further submitted that although the auction was
scheduled at 11:00 A.M., it commenced at 11:05 A.M., thereby
shifting the closing time to 1:05 P.M. In terms of Clause 12 of
the tender conditions, if any bid is made within the last five
minutes of the closing time, the system automatically extends
the bidding period by one hour. Since a bid was made within the
last five minutes, the system automatically extended the bidding
time till 2:05 P.M. In such circumstances, the bid submitted by
Respondent No. 7 at 2:00:30 P.M. was within the extended
period and validly accepted. It is submitted that the process was
conducted through an automated system without any scope for
manipulation, and Respondent No. 7, being the highest bidder,
was rightly declared successful.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon
consideration of the materials available on record, the limited
issue which arises for consideration before this Court is as to
Patna High Court CWJC No.16757 of 2023 dt.13-05-2026
whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the bid
submitted by Respondent No. 7 at 2:00:30 P.M. was within the
permissible time in terms of Clause 12 of the notice inviting e-
auction, particularly in light of the actual commencement of the
auction at 11:05 A.M., and consequently, whether the action of
the respondents in accepting the said bid and declaring
Respondent No. 7 as the successful bidder is justified in law?
10. From the materials available on record, it appears
that upon receipt of the petitioner's objection, the authorities did
not act mechanically but proceeded to undertake a proper fact-
finding exercise by constituting a scrutiny committee comprising
technical and administrative officials. The said committee
examined the entire e-auction process, including system-
generated logs and bidding timelines, and thereafter submitted
its report dated 16.01.2023. The relevant part of the said report is
reproduced hereinbelow:
"1- eqt¶Qjiqj ftykUrxZr ;qfuV&04 esa vafdr
eqjkSy ,oa cS/kukFkiqj ckyw ?kkV ds fy, fnukad 26-12-
2022 dks 11%05 cts ls v‚u&ykbZu ds ek/;e ls
bZ&çksD;ksjeasV eksM
https://www.eproc2.bihar.gov.in ij bZ&
VsaMfjax dh çfd;k 'kq: dh x;hA ;g çfd;k iw.kZr%
v‚VkseSfVd gSA mYys[kuh; gS fd dqN rdfudh
dkj.k o'k iwoZ ls fu/kkZfjr le; 11-00 iwokZgu ds
ctk;s 11%05 cts iwokZgu ls çkjaHk gks dj 01%05 cts
vijkg~u rd fu/kkZfjr dh x;hA ftldh lwpuk
v‚uykbZu ds ek/;e ls iksVZy ij çnf'kZr dh x;hA
Patna High Court CWJC No.16757 of 2023 dt.13-05-2026
2- fufonk nLrost ds dafMdk la[;k 12 ds vuqlkj
^^ fdlh fof'k"V lEink ds bZ&uhykeh dh çfd;k esa
fu/kkZfjr le; lhek ds vafre 05 feuV esa ;fn
fdlh cksyhnkrk ds }kjk cksyh lefiZr dh tkrh gS
rks flLVe }kjk Lor% cksyh lekfIr vof/k dks
dsoy ,d ckj ek= vxys ,d ?kaVk dh vof/k ds
fy, foLrkfjr dj fn;k tk;sxkA mlds ckn vof/k
foLrkj ugha fd;k tk;sxk^^ dafMdk esa mYysf[kr
fu;ekuqlkj vafre ik¡p feuV dh vof/k 01%00%00
cts vijkgu ls 01%05%00 cts vijkg~u rd gksrh gSA
bl vafre ik¡p feuV dh vof/k esa Saumya
Construction ds }kjk 01%00%30 cts vijkg~u esa
cksyh yxk;h x;hA fu;ekuqlkj bZ&uhykeh dh vof/k
dks ,d ckj ek= ds fy, vxys 01 ?kaVk ds fy,
¼01%00%30 cts vijkg~u ls 02%00%30 cts vijkg~u
rd½ flLVe }kjk Lor% lHkh cksyh nkrkvksa ds fy,
vof/k foLrkfjr dj nh x;hA bl foLrkfjr vof/k esa
Saumya Construction ds }kjk 02%00%30 cts
vijkgu esa mPpre cksyh yxk;h x;h] ,oa flLVe }
kjk mPpre Mkdoäk ds :i esa p;fur fd;k x;kA
vkosnd ds }kjk vafre cksyh 01%47%56 cts yxk;h
x;hA bl vof/k ds ckn buds }kjk dksbZ vxyh
cksyh ugha yxk;h x;hA pw¡fd bZ&uhykeh dh çfØ;k
iw.kZr% v‚VkseSVsM gS] blesa fdlh dk dksbZ Manual
Extention ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA
vr% rdfudh tk¡p lfefr ds }kjk loZ
lgefr ls ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyk x;k fd fdlh Hkh
cksyh nkrk dks fdlh çdkj dk dksbZ vfrfjä le;
ugha fn;k x;k gSA ;g bZ&uhykeh dh çfØ;k
fu;ekuqlkj iw.kZ dh x;h gSA vkosnd ds }kjk ykxk,
x, vkjksi fujk/kkj gSA
vuqyXud %& ;FkksDrA"
11. On perusal of the aforesaid report, it emerges that
although the auction was scheduled to commence at 11:00 A.M.,
it in fact commenced at 11:05 A.M. due to technical reasons, and
Patna High Court CWJC No.16757 of 2023 dt.13-05-2026
accordingly, the system reflected the bidding window from 11:05
A.M. to 01:05 P.M. The report further records that a bid was
submitted at 01:00:30 P.M., i.e., within the last five minutes of
the revised closing time, which in terms of Clause 12 of the
tender conditions triggered an automatic extension of the bidding
period by one hour, thereby extending the time up to 02:05 P.M.
Clause 12 of the notice inviting e-auction reads as follows:
"¼12½ fdlh fof"k'V lEink ds bZ&fuykeh dh izfdz;k
esa fu/kkZfjr le; lhek ds vafre 05 feuV es ;fn
fdlh cksyhnkrk }kjk lefiZr dh tkrh gS rks
flLVe }kjk Lor% cksyh lekfIr dh vof/k dks
dsoy ,d ckj ek= vxys ,d ?kaVk dh vof/k ds
fy, foLrkfjr dj fn;k tk;sxkA mlds ckn vof/k
foLrkj ugha fd;k tk;sxkA "
12. The aforesaid report is based on the Auction Synopsis
Report (the same being annexed to the scrutiny committee
report) which clearly indicates the start time of the auction as
"Dec 26, 2022 11:05:00 A.M.". Therefore, the extension of 5
minutes was valid and genuine. The genuineness and
authenticity of the said synopsis report has not been refuted by
the petitioner.
13. The report further records that the extension
mechanism was entirely system-driven and did not admit any
manual intervention. It also emerges from the report that during
this extended period, respondent No. 7 submitted a bid at
Patna High Court CWJC No.16757 of 2023 dt.13-05-2026
02:00:30 P.M., which fell within the extended bidding time,
whereas the petitioner had made its last bid at 01:47:56 P.M. and
did not participate thereafter.
14. In the aforesaid backdrop, the controversy in the
present case centres around the validity of the time-extension
mechanism and acceptance of the bid submitted during such
extended period. It is well settled that the terms and conditions
governing a tender process are required to be strictly adhered to
and must be applied uniformly to all participants.
15. In Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar
Municipal Corporation reported in (2000) 5 SCC 287, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that fairness, transparency and
equal treatment of all participants constitute the governing
principles in matter relating to award of contracts and tenders.
The relevant part of the said order reads as follows:
"10. There have been several decisions rendered
by this Court on the question of tender process,
the award of contract and have evolved several
principles in regard to the same. Ultimately what
prevails with the courts in these matters is that
while public interest is paramount there should
be no arbitrariness in the matter of award of
contract and all participants in the tender
process should be treated alike. We may sum up
the legal position thus:
(i) The Government is free to enter into any
contract with citizens but the court may interfere
where it acts arbitrarily or contrary to public
Patna High Court CWJC No.16757 of 2023 dt.13-05-2026
interest.
(ii) The Government cannot arbitrarily choose
any person it likes for entering into such a
relationship or to discriminate between persons
similarly situate.
(iii) It is open to the Government to reject even
the highest bid at a tender where such rejection
is not arbitrary or unreasonable or such
rejection is in public interest for valid and good
reasons.
11. Broadly stated, the courts would not interfere
with the matter of administrative action or
changes made therein, unless the Government's
action is arbitrary or discriminatory or the
policy adopted has no nexus with the object it
seeks to achieve or is mala fide."
16. In the present case, the extension of time was
neither discretionary nor selectively applied, rather the same
operated automatically under Clause 12 through the system
itself and uniformly applied to all the participating bidders.
17. Further, in Silppi Constructions Contractors v.
Union of India reported in (2020) 16 SCC 489, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court emphasised the limited scope of judicial review
in contractual and technical matters and observed that Courts
ought to exercise restraint unless the decision-making process is
shown to be arbitrary, mala fide or irrational. The relevant part
of the said order reads as follows:
"19. This Court being the guardian of
fundamental rights is duty-bound to interfere
Patna High Court CWJC No.16757 of 2023 dt.13-05-2026
when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, mala
fides and bias. However, this Court in all the
aforesaid decisions has cautioned time and again
that courts should exercise a lot of restraint while
exercising their powers of judicial review in
contractual or commercial matters. This Court is
normally loathe to interfere in contractual
matters unless a clear-cut case of arbitrariness
or mala fides or bias or irrationality is made out.
One must remember that today many public
sector undertakings compete with the private
industry. The contracts entered into between
private parties are not subject to scrutiny under
writ jurisdiction. No doubt, the bodies which are
State within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution are bound to act fairly and are
amenable to the writ jurisdiction of superior
courts but this discretionary power must be
exercised with a great deal of restraint and
caution. The courts must realise their limitations
and the havoc which needless interference in
commercial matters can cause. In contracts
involving technical issues the courts should be
even more reluctant because most of us in
Judges' robes do not have the necessary expertise
to adjudicate upon technical issues beyond our
domain. As laid down in the judgments cited
above the courts should not use a magnifying
glass while scanning the tenders and make every
small mistake appear like a big blunder. In fact,
the courts must give "fair play in the joints" to
the government and public sector undertakings in
matters of contract. Courts must also not
interfere where such interference will cause
unnecessary loss to the public exchequer."
18. In the present case, the entire process was
conducted through an electronic platform and the bidding
timeline, including the extension mechanism, was system-
Patna High Court CWJC No.16757 of 2023 dt.13-05-2026
driven. The record placed before this Court do not indicate any
material suggesting manual intervention, favouritism, or
manipulation in the conduct of the auction.
19. It is also a settled principle that findings returned
by an expert or technical committee deserve due weight and
ordinarily ought not to be interfered with lightly. In University
of Mysore & Ors v. C.D. Govinda Rao & Ors reported in AIR
1965 SC 491, it has been held that Courts should be slow in
interfering with the opinion expressed by expert bodies,
particularly in matters involving technical assessment and
specialised evaluation. The relevant part of the said order reads
as follows:
"12. Before we part with these appeals,
however, reference must be made to two other
matters. In dealing with the case presented
before it by the respondent, the High Court has
criticised the report made by the Board and has
observed that the circumstances disclosed by
the report made it difficult for the High Court to
treat the recommendations made by the expert
with the respect that they generally deserve. We
are unable to see the point of criticism of the
High Court in such academic matters. Boards
of Appointments are nominated by the
Universities and when recommendations made
by them and the appointments following on
them, are challenged before courts, normally
the courts should be slow to interfere with the
opinions expressed by the experts. There is no
allegation about mala fides against the experts
who constituted the present Board; and so, we
Patna High Court CWJC No.16757 of 2023 dt.13-05-2026
think, it would normally be wise and safe for
the courts to leave the decisions of academic
matters to experts who are more familiar with
the problems they face than the courts generally
can be. The criticism made by the High Court
against the report made by the Board seems to
suggest that the High Court thought that the
Board was in the position of an executive
authority, issuing an executive fiat, or was
acting like a quasi-judicial tribunal, deciding
disputes referred to it for its decision. In
dealing with complaints made by citizens in
regard to appointments made by academic
bodies, like the Universities, such an approach
would not be reasonable or appropriate. In fact,
in issuing the writ, the High Court has made
certain observations which show that the High
Court applied tests which would legitimately be
applied in the case of writs of certiorari. In the
judgment, it has been observed that the error in
this case is undoubtedly a manifest error. That
is a consideration which is more germane and
relevant in a procedure for a writ of certiorari.
What the High Court should have considered is
whether the appointment made by the
Chancellor had contravened any statutory or
binding rule or ordinance, and in doing so, the
High Court should have shown due regard to
the opinion expressed by the Board and its
recommendations on which the Chancellor has
acted. In this connection, the High Court has
failed to notice one significant fact that when
the Board considered the claims of the
respective applicants, it examined them very
carefully and actually came to the conclusion
that none of them deserved to be appointed a
Professor. These recommendations made by the
Board clearly show that they considered the
relevant factors carefully and ultimately came
to the conclusion that Appellant 2 should be
recommended for the post of Reader. Therefore,
Patna High Court CWJC No.16757 of 2023 dt.13-05-2026
we are satisfied that the criticism made by the
High Court against the Board and its
deliberations is not justified."
20. In the present case, the scrutiny committee
examined objective and system-generated data and thereafter
returned a categorical finding that the process was conducted in
accordance with the prescribed conditions. The automated
extension mechanism, being uniformly applicable to all bidders,
also rules out any allegation of arbitrariness or discriminatory
treatment.
21. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, once
it stands established that (i) the auction effectively commenced
at 11:05 A.M., (ii) the original closing time consequently shifted
to 01:05 P.M., (iii) extension of the bidding period till 02:05
P.M. occurred automatically in terms of Clause 12 of the tender
conditions, and (iv) the bid submitted by respondent No. 7 at
02:00:30 P.M. was within the extended period and was the
highest bid, the action of the respondents in accepting the said
bid and declaring respondent No. 7 as the successful bidder
cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness. The
decision appears to be in consonance with the tender conditions
and supported by a fair and transparent process, and thus does
not warrant interference.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16757 of 2023 dt.13-05-2026
22. Accordingly, the present writ applications stands
dismissed.
23. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
Shailendra Singh, J: I agree
(Shailendra Singh, J)
Anushka/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 06.05.2026
Uploading Date 13.05.2026
Transmission Date
