Patna High Court
M/s Rudra EnterprisesversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- WITHDRAWN
Holding
The writ petition is infructuous as the tender has already been finalized, and therefore the petition is dismissed.
Summary
M/s Rudra Enterprises filed a writ petition challenging the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee’s decision to reject its objection and to qualify SSS Construction (Respondent No. 6) for a rural works tender. The petitioner sought quashing of the committee’s decision, a re‑evaluation of the technical bid, and a restraining order against finalising the tender. The respondents submitted a counter‑affidavit stating that the tender had already been concluded with a Letter of Acceptance issued to Respondent No. 6 on 06‑Oct‑2025. The Court observed that, since the tender had attained finality, the writ petition could no longer be entertained. Consequently, the petition was held to be infructuous and was disposed of, with a suggestion that the petitioner could challenge the Letter of Acceptance separately if desired.
Issues considered
- Whether the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee erred in refusing to entertain the petitioner’s objection and in qualifying Respondent No. 6.
- Whether the court can quash the committee’s decision and order a fresh technical‑bid evaluation.
- Whether the writ petition remains maintainable given that the tender has already been finalized.
Subjects
- tender procurement
- technical bid evaluation
- writ jurisdiction
- letter of acceptance
- infructuous petition
- public works department
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17494 of 2025
======================================================
M/s Rudra Enterprises Office at Belbanawa, Motihari, District East
Champaran (Bihar) through its Partner Satyam Kumar, Male, aged about 47
years, Son of Surendra Pratap Singh, Resident of Ward No. 34, Raja Bazar,
Gopalpur, P.S. Town Motihari, District East Champaran, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Works
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Engineer In-Chief-cum Additional Commissioner-cum-Special
Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer-5 (Muzaffarpur), Rural Works Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Circle-
Motihari, District East Champaran, Bihar.
5. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division
-Motihari, District East Champaran, Bihar.
6. M/s. SSS Construction, village Sita Kund, Bedi Ban, Madhuban, P.O.- Pipra,
Via-Damodarpur, District East Champaran, Bihar 845416.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Amish Kumar, J.C. to A.G.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
2 20-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. The following reliefs have been sought for in the
present writ application:
“1 (i) Quashing of the decision of the
Technical Bid Evaluation Committee headed
by the Engineer-in-Chief as contained in
Patna High Court CWJC No.17494 of 2025(2) dt.20-04-2026
2/3
Memo No. 2719 dated 24.09.2025
(Annexure-P/5) by which, the Committee,
misinterpreting the interdict of Clause 32 of
the NIT read with Clause 24.2 of the ITB has
refused to entertain the objection filed by the
petitioner and further re-affirmed the
decision of qualification of Respondent No.
6;
(ii) Commanding the Respondents to re-
evaluate the technical bid of the Respondent
no. 6 in terms of the objection filed by the
petitioner and the verification report
obtained from the employees Provident Fund
Organization reporting the Registration
Certificate submitted by Respondent No. 6 to
be forged and false; and
(iii) Restraining the Respondents from
finalizing the tender and creating third-party
rights during the pendency of the present
writ application and/or the without the leave
of this Hon’ble Court.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
respondent nos. 1 to 5, wherein following statement has been
made in paragraph no. 18:-
“18. That it would not be out of place to
mention here that the tender in question has
already arrived to its finality and the Letter
of Acceptance bearing Letter No. 2423 dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.17494 of 2025(2) dt.20-04-2026
3/3
06.10.2025 has already been issued to the
successful bidder and the process for
execution of agreement has already been
initiated.”
4. Considering the aforesaid statement, it appears
that tender in question has already attained finality, thereby
rendering the present writ application infructuous.
5. Accordingly, the present writ application stands
disposed of as having become infructuous.
6. The petitioner, if so advised, shall be at liberty to
challenge the Letter of Acceptance issued in favour of
respondent no. 6 vide Letter No. 2423 dated 06.10.2025.
7. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
( Shailendra Singh, J)
U.K./-B.K.S.
U
Checking your session…