Patna High Court
Vishanu Kumar Pandey @ Vishnu Kumar PandeyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Court held that the Technical Bid Committee’s decision was not arbitrary and that the private respondent’s bid was substantially responsive, leading to dismissal of the writ.
Summary
The petitioner, Vishanu Kumar Pandey, challenged the technical bid evaluation of Tender No. RWD/MMGSY(AWSESH‑SC)/HQ/ET/2025‑26/11, alleging that the private respondent, E.R AP Construction Pvt. Ltd., was declared technically qualified despite being substantially non‑responsive. The petitioner filed complaints within the prescribed period, but the Technical Bid Committee rejected them, finding no violation of Clause 24.2 of the ITB which defines a substantially responsive bid. The petitioner sought to set aside the committee’s decision, declare the private respondent’s technical bid invalid, and be awarded the L1 position in the financial bid. The High Court examined the provisions of Clause 32 of the NIT and Clause 24.2 of the ITB, and held that the committee’s evaluation was not arbitrary and the private respondent’s bid met the substantive requirements. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ application, finding no merit in the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the private respondent's bid was substantially responsive under Clause 24.2 of the ITB.
- Whether the Technical Bid Committee's decision can be set aside on grounds of arbitrariness or perversity.
- Whether the petitioner's complaint was barred by the five‑day limitation prescribed in Clause 32 of the NIT.
Subjects
- tender evaluation
- technical bid
- substantially responsive
- public procurement
- judicial review
- NIT
- complaint period
- disqualification
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15947 of 2025
======================================================
Vishanu Kumar Pandey @ Vishnu Kumar Pandey S/o Late Satya Narayan
Pandey, R/O Vill- Pandey Chapra, P.O.- Ekma, P.S.- Rasulpur, District- Saran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar.
2. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Rural Works Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Engineer-in Chief -Cum- Dy. Commissioner-Cum-Special Secretary,
Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Chief Engineer, South, Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Muzaffarpur.
5. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, works Division,
Siwan.
6. The Nodal Officer, Mukhya Mantri Gram Samparak Yojana, Siwan.
7. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division,
Maharajganj.
8. E.R AP Construction Private Limited, through its Director, Anil Kumar
Singh, R/o Vill- Dhanauti, P.O. and P.S.- Hajipur, Dist.- Vaishali.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Praveen Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay, GA-5
Mr. Durga Nand Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
5 04-02-2026 The present writ application has been filed for the
following reliefs:
“i.) To set aside the part of the decision
taken by the Technical Bid Committee, Rural Works
Department, Bihar dated 11.09.2025 with respect to
tender bearing Tender NIT no.-
RWD/MMGSY(AWSESH-SC)/HQ/ET/2025- 26/11
Patna High Court CWJC No.15947 of 2025(5) dt.04-02-2026
2/7
under Package No.-MMGSY(AWSESH-SC)-
Maharajganj-503(Tender Id-2025_ RWD_ 142361_
1) dated 12.06.2025 issued by office of the
Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department, Govt.
of Bihar, for a work at serial no.31 i.e.,” For
Construction and 06-year routine maintenance
work (output and performance based) for Rural
Road/Bridge under component of Mukhya Mantri
Gram Sampark Yojana (AWSESH-SC) whereby and
where under the objections raised by the petitioner
against the private respondent has been considered
by the authority concerned but still declared private
respondent qualified in technical bid in a flimsy
and non-existent ground in a most arbitrary and
mechanical manner.
ii.) To hold and declare the technical bid
of the private respondent as invalid in NIT no.-
RWD/MMGSY(AWSESH-SC)/HQ/ET/2025-26/11
under Package No.-MMGSY(AWSESH-SC)-
Maharajganj-503(Tender Id-2025_ RWD_ 142361
_1) dated 12.06.2025 issued by office of the
Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department, Govt.
of Bihar and further direct the Respondents
authority to declare petitioner as L1 in the
Financial Bid after disqualification of private
respondent and award tender in favour of the
petitioner.
iii.) To stay the further proceeding of
NIT no.- RWD/ MMGSY (AWSESH-SC)/ HQ/ ET/
2025-26/11 under Package No.-MMGSY
(AWSESH-SC)-Maharajganj-503 (Tender Id-2025_
RWD_ 142361_ 1) dated 12.06.2025 issued by
Patna High Court CWJC No.15947 of 2025(5) dt.04-02-2026
3/7
office of the Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works
Department, Govt. of Bihar, during the pendency of
the writ application as Financial Bid is already
opened and private respondent is the lowest bidder.
iv) For any other order/orders for which
petitioner is entitled for in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
2. The petitioner has assailed Annexure-P/4 in the
present writ application. The petitioner was also one of the
bidders in the tender in question. Upon declaration of the
technical bid, both the petitioner as well as respondent No. 8
lodged complaints against each other. The impugned decision
before this Court pertains to rejection of the complaint
submitted by the petitioner by the competent authority. The
reasons assigned for such rejection, as extracted from the
impugned order, are as follows:
fufonkdkj Vishanu Kumar Pandey }kjk vius
i=kad&”kwU; fnukad&11-08-2025 }kjk fufonkdkj ER AP
Construction Private Limited ds fo:) ifjokn fn;k
x;k gSA izkIr ifjokn ds vkyksd esa dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark] xzkeh.k
dk;Z foHkkx] dk;Z izeaMy] egkjktxat ds i=kad&1496 fnukad
29-08-2025 ds }kjk tkWp izfrosnu lefiZr fd;k gS] tks fuEuor~
gS %&
dz fufonkdkj Vishanu Kumar Pandey }kjk dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark]
e0 fn;k x;k ifjokn dk;Z izeaMy
la0 csfr;k }kjk lefiZr
tkWp izfrosnu
1 (a) fufonkdkj ER AP Construction (a) fufonkdkj ER
Private Limited }kjk VsUMj vkbZ0Mh- AP Construction
2025_RWD_142361_1 esa Mkys x;s Private Limited
fufonk esa Bid Already Submitted ugha }kjk CMBD ds
fn;k x;k gS tks fd fufon ds CMBD ds dafMdk 4-2 ds (n)
Patna High Court CWJC No.15947 of 2025(5) dt.04-02-2026
4/7
dafMdk&4-2 ds (n) dk mYya?ku gSA ds vuqlkj okafNr
(b) fufonkdkj ER AP Construction Bid Already
Private Limited }kjk Mkys x;s fufonk dk Submitted izi=
“kiFk i= vius uke ls u [kjhn dj fMiksusV layXu ugha fd;k
ds uke ls [kjhnk x;k gS] ftlls ;g izrhr x;k gSA
gksrk gS fd muds }kjk Mkys x, “kiFk&i= (b) fufonkdkj }kjk
fdlh vkSj ds }kjk [kjhns x, LVkai dks vius layXu “kiFk&i=
fufonk esa Mkyk x;k gS tks fd fufonk ds fufonkdkj ds uke
fu;eksa dk mYya?ku gSA ls fuxZr ugha gS
(c) fufonkdkj ER AP Construction cfYd Name of
Private Limited }kjk Mkys x;s vius Applicant esa
fufonk ds dkxtkrksa esa daiuh dk eqgj ugha Deponent “kCn
yxk;k x;k ftlesa ;g izekf.kr ugha gksrk gS vafdr gSA
fd daiuh ds fdu MkbZjsDVj@eSusftax (c) fufonkdkj }kjk
MkbZjsDVj }kjk fufonk ds dkxtkrksa ij layXu dkxtkrksa ij
gLrk{kj fd;k x;k gSA daiuh@QeZ ds
Article of
Association ds
rgr ukfer
MkbZjsDVj ds }kjk
gLrk{kj fd;k x;k
gS ijUrq eksgj eqfnzr
ugha gSA
Lfefr dk earO;%& ifjoknh }kjk fn;k x;k ifjokn Substantial
Responsive ds varxZr ugha gSA vr% CMBD dh dafMdk&24-2 ds
vkyksd esa fn;s x;s ifjokn dks vekU; fd;k tkrk gSA
2 buds }kjk Mkys x;s Bank Certificate Hkh fufonkdkj }kjk
Hkzked gSA bldh lR;rk dh tkWp cSad }kjk fufonk esa Upload
djkbZ tk;A Bank Certificate
dk lR;kiu lacaf/kr
cSad ls djk;k
x;k ,oa cSad }kjk
bldh iqf’V dh x;h
gSA
lfefr dk earO;%& fufonkdkj ER AP Construction Private
Limited }kjk fufonk esa layXu Bank Certificate dk lR;kiu djk;k
x;k tks lgh ik;k x;kA vr% ifjoknh dk ifjokn vekU; fd;k tkrk gSA
3. The limited issue which arises for consideration
before this Court is as to whether respondent No. 8 was
substantially responsive at the time of evaluation of the
technical bid by the respondents.
4. Clause 32 of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT)
governs the issue and reads as follows:
Patna High Court CWJC No.15947 of 2025(5) dt.04-02-2026
5/7
“32. The result of evaluation of Part-I
(Technical Bid) shall be made public on e-
procurement following which there will be a period
of 5 Working days from the date of uploading the
result of Technical Bid Evaluation during which
bidders, who participated in the bid, may submit
complaint which may be considered for resolution
before opening of part-II (Financial bid) of the bid.
Any complaint received from bidders beyond 5
working days from the date of uploading of result
of Technical Bid shall not be entertained.
In case the decision is changed after
redressal of complaint of all issues raised by
bidders during the 5 working days already
allotted, then further 3 working days from the date
of uploading of Re-technical result will be
allotted. During this period,
representation/complaint regarding only about the
change in the decision of the committee in the Re-
technical Evaluation shall be entertained. No
fresh complaint on other bidders/issues shall be
considered.
In case if there is no change in the
result after re-technical evaluation then the
process of opening of financial bid/retender shall
be done as per direction in the minutes of meeting
of the retechnical evaluation.
Complaint shall be entertained only on
the items, necessary to make a bid substantially
responsive, that is on the items mentioned in ITB
24.2. Any complaint/Representation as above shall
be on Affidavit supported with evidence.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15947 of 2025(5) dt.04-02-2026
6/7
Any Complaint without evidence &
affidavit shall not be entertained.”
5. It is required to be noted that the said NIT is to be
read and construed in consonance with Clause 24.2 of the ITB
of CMBD. Clause 24.2 reads as under:
“24.2 A substantially responsive bid is one that
meets the requirements of the Bidding Document
without material deviation, reservation, or
omission. The mandatory requirements for a
substantially responsive bid is mentioned in Bid
Data Sheet. A material deviation, reservation, or
omision is one that,
(a) if accepted, would
(i) Affect in any substantial way the scope,
quality or performance of the Works specified
in the Contract; or
(ii) Limit in any substantial way, inconsistent
with the Bidding Document, the Engineer-in-
chief-cum-Additional Commisioner-cum-
Special Secretary/ Engineer-in-chief’s rights
or the Bidder’s obligations under the
proposed Contract; or
(b) If rectified, would unfairly affect the competitive
position of other Bidders presenting substantially
responsive bids.”
6. Disqualification can be resorted to only when a
bidder is found to be substantially non-responsive and non-
Patna High Court CWJC No.15947 of 2025(5) dt.04-02-2026
7/7
compliant with the stipulations contained in Clause 24.2 of the
ITB. Upon consideration of the complaint preferred by the
petitioner, the respondents arrived at the conclusion that there
was no contravention of Clause 24.2 of the ITB by respondent
No. 8 and, accordingly, rejected the complaint lodged by the
petitioner.
7. Having regard to the limited scope of judicial
review in matters pertaining to tender evaluation and finding no
perversity or arbitrariness in the decision making process, this
Court finds no merit in the present writ application.
8. Accordingly, the present writ application stands
dismissed.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Anushka/-
U
Checking your session…