Patna High Court
Deo Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.versusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The court held that, because a Letter of Acceptance had already been issued to respondent No.8 and was not contested in the writ, the petition could not be entertained and was therefore disposed.
Summary
Deo Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. filed a writ petition challenging a memo and the decision of the Rural Works Department that declared respondent No.8 as L1 and rejected the petitioner’s bid for Tender ID-615420, alleging arbitrariness, illegality, and discrimination. The petitioner sought quashing of the memo and decision, and an order directing the award of the work to it. The respondents contended that a Letter of Acceptance (LOA) had already been issued to respondent No.8, which was not challenged in the writ. The High Court observed that the LOA had been issued and, since it was not the subject of the present petition, there was no ground to interfere. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ application without granting any relief, indicating that the petitioner could file a separate writ if it wishes to challenge the LOA.
Issues considered
- Whether the memo and decision of the Rural Works Department awarding the contract to respondent No.8 and rejecting the petitioner were arbitrary, illegal, and discriminatory.
- Whether the court can quash the memo and direct the award of the work to the petitioner under the writ jurisdiction.
- Whether the issuance of a Letter of Acceptance to respondent No.8 bars the petitioner’s relief in the present writ petition.
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- public procurement
- arbitrary action
- discrimination
- tender evaluation
- Letter of Acceptance
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15195 of 2025
======================================================
Deo Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at Mohalla- Shiv Mandi,
Gaushala Road, District- Khagaria through its Director Nand Kumar Yadav,
male, aged about 59 years, Son of Punit Prasad Yadav, Resident of
Chakhusaini Mansi, Ward no. 15, P.O. and P.S. - Chak Hussaini, District-
Khagaria.
... ... 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 Chief Engineer-4, Rural Works Department. Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Superintending Engineer Rural works Department, work Circle,
Saharsa.
6. The Nodal Officer, State Yojna, Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
7. The Executive Engineer, Work Division- Gogri District - Khagaria.
8. Mukesh Kumar Singh, S/o- Ramakant Singh, R/o- At Rajdhan P.O. and P.S.-
Maheshkhunt, District- Khagaria, Pin - 851213.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. AC to AG
Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
5 22-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The following reliefs have been sought in the
present writ application:
Patna High Court CWJC No.15195 of 2025(5) dt.22-04-2026
2/3
" i). For quashing memo as contained in Memo no.
4969 dated 05.09.2025 issued under the signature of
the Engineer-in-chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-
cum-Special Secretary, Rural Works Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna and other officials
(Technical Bid Committee) uploaded on internet site of
the Department, on 07.09.2025 Sunday after 12.50 PM
as evident from digital signature after opening of
Financial bid, whereby and where under the complaint
filed on behalf of the respondent no. 8 has erroneously
been rejected to favor him by the respondent
authorities inspite of the fact that respondent no.8
have furnished wrong details (played fraud) about his
ongoing commitments and have not furnished Bank
guarantee in proper format which is mandatory
requirement to be considered for award of work or to
participate in the tender process.
ii). For quashing of the decision of the respondent
authorities dated 07.09.2025 (Sunday) at about 12.48
PM, whereby and where under financial bid of the
petitioner along with respondent no. 8 have been
opened and respondent no. 8 has been declared as L1,
in a very arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory manner,
being biased as against the petitioner, without even
informing to the petitioner about disposal of the
complaint to the petitioner, moreover, the same was
uploaded on the website after decision of the bid
committee considering respondent no.8 as financially
qualified.
iii). For directing and commanding the respondent
authorities to award work order in favor of the
petitioner as the petitioner possesses requisite criteria
for grant of work (Tender ID-615420) (MGSY/24-
25Gogari-01) and is duly qualified in technical and
was erroneously declared as L2 and proceed further
with the tender and get the agreement executed allow
the petitioner to carry out and complete the work, for
which petitioner possesses the requisite criteria.
iv). For declaration that the decisions of the
authorities dated 04.09.2025 and 07.09.2025 uploaded
on official website 12.50 PM and 12.48 PM
respectively as totally baseless, illegal, arbitrary,
discriminatory as against the petitioner, biased as
against the petitioner, as well as colorable exercise of
power.
v). For any other relief or reliefs for which the
petitioner is entitled under law in the facts and
circumstances of the present case."
Patna High Court CWJC No.15195 of 2025(5) dt.22-04-2026
3/3
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that
during the pendency of the present writ application, a LOA has
already been issued in favour of the Respondent No.8.
4. Considering the fact that the LOA (Letter of
Acceptance) has already been issued which is not under
challenge in the present writ application, this court is of the
view that no further order is required to be passed in the present
writ application.
5. Accordingly, the present writ application stands
disposed of.
6. If so advised, the petitioner shall be at liberty to
challenge the said LOA by way of filing a separate writ
application.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Shailendra Singh, J)
Rajiv/Sujit
U
Checking your session…