Patna High Court
M/s. Mother India Construction Pvt. Ltd.versusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The order dated 04‑09‑2025 rejecting the petitioner’s technical bid is set aside as arbitrary, and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with Clause 4.5(A)(d).
Summary
The Patna High Court heard a writ petition filed by M/s Mother India Construction Pvt. Ltd. challenging the rejection of its technical bid for the construction of a Block‑cum‑Circle office building. The Technical Bid Evaluation Committee had disqualified the bid on the ground that the sub‑contractor’s work experience did not meet the minimum amount of Rs 1,11,28,044 required under Clause 4.5(A)(d) of the NIT, despite the petitioner’s own certificate showing higher experience. The petitioner argued that the clause allows either the contractor or the identified sub‑contractor to satisfy the experience requirement and that its own certificate was ignored. The State contended that the petitioner’s certificate was not part of the bid documents. The Court found the order dated 04‑09‑2025 to be arbitrary, set it aside, and remitted the matter to the authorities to reconsider the representation filed on 05‑09‑2025 and pass a reasoned order within three weeks. The writ application was consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- The adequacy of the sub‑contractor’s work‑experience as required by Clause 4.5(A)(d) of the NIT for eligibility of the technical bid.
- Whether the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee’s rejection of the bid was arbitrary and violative of natural justice.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to be allowed to participate in the financial bid and be awarded the contract.
Subjects
- public procurement
- technical bid evaluation
- sub‑contractor experience
- natural justice
- writ of certiorari
- Companies Act
- NIT clause
- contract award
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16155 of 2025
======================================================
M/s. Mother India Construction Pvt. Ltd. a company incorporated under the
Companies act 1916 having its office at Aspura House, Road No.3, Sanjay
Gandhi Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna, Bihar, 800020 through its authorized
signatory Raj Kishore, (Male), aged about 49 years, S/o Ram Shankar Singh,
Residing of Mohalla- Chanakya Nagar, Kothwa Bagicha, PO and PS-
Khagaul, Danapur District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Building
Construction, Department, Visheweshraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Building Construction Department,
Visheweshraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
3. The Departmental Tender Committee, Building Construction Department,
Patna.
4. The Engineer-in-Chief (Works Management), Building Construction
Department, Visheweshraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
5. The Chief Engineer, Building Construction Department, Bihar, Patna.
6. The Technical Bid Evaluation Committee, Office of Chief Engineer,
Building Construction Department, Patna.
7. The Superintending Engineer, Patna Building Circle, Patna.
8. The Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Patna West
Building Division, Danapur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Samir Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Saurabh Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. M.N.H. Khan, SC-1
Ms. Babita Kumari, AC to SC-1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
3 10-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Following is the relief sought for in the present writ
application:-
“(i) For issuing a writ of certiorari or
Patna High Court CWJC No.16155 of 2025(3) dt.10-04-2026
2/5
any other appropriate writ quashing/setting aside
the order dated 04.09.2025 contained in Memo No.
2337 passed by Respondent No. 6 (The Technical
Bid Evaluation Committee, Patna) (Annexure-P/4)
whereby and whereunder has Respondent Chief
Engineer has passed an order that petitioner’s Bid
was found non-responsive on the ground that he has
not met with condition laid in clause 4.5A(d) of
Standard Bidding Document (SBD) in connection
with the work of “Construction of Block-cum-Circle
office Building at Bikram, Patna”.
(ii) For issuing a writ of mandamus or
any other appropriate writ/Direction to the
respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in
financial Bid and award the aforesaid work in favor
of the petitioner, if found L1 and issue Letter of
Acceptance (LOA) to him.
(iii) For passing any such order/orders
as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in
facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. The order under challenge is dated 04.09.2025,
issued vide Memo No. 2337(P). The extract of the said order is
as follows:-
“fufonkdkj MOTHER INDIA
CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD., ADD-
ASPURA HOUSE, ROAD NO.03,
SANJAY GANDHI NAGAR,
KANKARBAGH, PATNA-800026 }kjk
,l0ch0Mh0 dh dafMdk&4.5A(d) ds varxZr ekaxs x;s
fo|qr dk;Z dk ykbZlsUl Mutual Affidavit 'ks[kj
baVjizkbtst ds lkFk lefiZr ik;k x;kA fdUrq 'ks[kj
Patna High Court CWJC No.16155 of 2025(3) dt.10-04-2026
3/5
baVjizkbZtst dk fo|qfrdj.k dk;Z dk vuqHko izek.k&i=
fufonk esa ekaxs x;s ₹ 1]11]28]044-00 ds fo:) ₹
84]54]201-40 lefiZr fd;k x;k gS] tks U;wure vgZrk
dks iw.kZ ugha djrk gSA vr% bUgsa rduhdh chM esa
"uu&fjLikWfUlo" ik;k x;kA”
4. From perusal of the above referred order, it appears
that the technical bid of the petitioner was turned down by the
Technical Bid Evaluation Committee for the reason that the
work experience in respect to the Sub-Contractor was only for
an amount of ₹ 84,54,201.40/- rather, as per the NIT, it ought to
have been ₹ 1,11,28,044.00/-.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to
Clause 4.5(A)(d) of the NIT, which is as follows:-
“4.5(A)(d) The contractor or his
identified sub-contractor should possess required
valid electrical license for executing the building
electrification works and should have executed
similar electrical works for a minimum amount as
indicated in Appendix in any one year.”
6. The ground that has been taken by the Respondents
for rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner is that the work
experience which was submitted by his Sub-Contractor was not
to the tune of ₹ 1,11,28,044.00/- but, from the perusal of Clause
4.5(A)(d), as referred above, the opening line of the Clause
itself indicates that the ‘contractor or his identified sub-
Patna High Court CWJC No.16155 of 2025(3) dt.10-04-2026
4/5
contractor’.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
work experience, is to be submitted either by the Contractor or
by his Sub-Contractor, fulfilling the amount in question as
indicated in Appendix to the said Clause. It is further submitted
that the petitioner, apart from the Certificate of his Sub-
Contractor, had also submitted its own certificate for the work
experience to the tune of ₹ 299.39649 lakhs, but the same had
not been considered by the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee
and, thus, the technical bid of the petitioner has been wrongly
rejected. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon the representation dated 05.09.2025
submitted before the Respondent authority, to which, no
response has been received till date.
8. Learned counsel for the State submits that the
certificate showing work experience of ₹ 299.39649 lakhs was
not submitted by the petitioner along with the bid documents.
9. From the materials available on record, there is
nothing to substantiate the submissions made on behalf of the
State.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances as
indicated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that
Patna High Court CWJC No.16155 of 2025(3) dt.10-04-2026
5/5
Annexure-P/4, i.e., order dated 04.09.2025 issued vide memo
No. 2337(P), has been issued arbitrarily.
11. Accordingly, the said order is set aside and the
matter is remitted back to the Respondent authority to consider
the case of the petitioner in light of the representation dated
05.09.2025 (Annexure-P/5) and to pass a reasoned order in
accordance with law, keeping in mind the terms of the Clause
4.5(A)(d) of the NIT within a period of three weeks from the
date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the
present writ application stands disposed of.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Shailendra Singh, J)
Sachin/Maynaz/-
U
Checking your session…