Patna High Court
Amar Engicon and Construction Private LimitedversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as there is no merit to interfere with the tender process, which was lawfully re‑tendered.
Summary
Amar Engicon and Construction Private Limited filed a writ petition challenging a letter dated 24‑09‑2025 that cancelled a tender without prior notice or a show‑cause opportunity. The petitioner sought quashing of the cancellation, direction to award the work to it, and any other relief. Respondents, including the State of Bihar and officials of the Road Construction Department, contended that the original tender was cancelled on technical grounds due to lapse of bid validity and that the subsequent re‑tender was lawfully conducted under the Bihar Financial Rules. The Departmental Tender Committee (DTC) treated the re‑tender as a first‑time tender and invited fresh bids, a decision upheld by a prior High Court judgment (CWJC No. 13968 of 2025). The Court observed that the petitioner had already participated in the fresh tender and found no merit to interfere with the departmental process, ordering the writ petition dismissed and directing the return of any bank guarantees.
Issues considered
- Whether the cancellation of the original tender without notice or a show‑cause notice is violative of procedural fairness.
- Whether the Departmental Tender Committee's decision to treat the re‑tender as a first‑time tender is legally valid.
- Whether a writ petition is maintainable to challenge the tender cancellation and subsequent re‑tender.
Subjects
- tender cancellation
- public procurement
- writ jurisdiction
- departmental tender committee
- procedural fairness
- re‑tender
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18030 of 2025
======================================================
Amar Engicon and Construction Private Limited, through its Director Gopal
Kumar Verma, (Male), aged about 39 years, son of Late Kishun Saw, resident
of Flat No. 201, Sirmangala Tower, Saheb Pokhra Road, VIP Chowk,
Deoghar 814112 (mobile No. 7004393616)
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special
Secretary, Works Manager, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Financial Advisor, The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar,
Patna.
5. The Chief Engineer (South), Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna.
6. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Lakhisarai.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Prasad, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Government Pleader (4)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
5 20-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. Following is the relief sought for in the present writ
petition.
“1 (i) For quashing the letter dated
24.09.2025 issued by the respondent no. 2 to 4
under the name of the petitioner whereas
cancelled the tender without prior notice to
the petitioner, without asking any show cause
to the petitioner with regard to deem to be the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18030 of 2025(5) dt.20-04-2026
2/4
first tender as well as also issued a direction
by the Direction to the Chief Engineer with
regard to advertise the fresh tender.
(ii) For issuance of a direction to the
respondent authority to allow the work
through the writ petitioner who is qualified in
tender for grant as per Notice Inviting Tender.
(iii) For any other order or orders to which
the petitioner may be entitled to.”
3. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on
behalf of respondent no. 6 wherein in paragraph nos. 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12 and 13 following statements have been made which is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
“7. That in the first tender two bidder namely
Santosh Kumar and Nishant Kumar had
participated. The Bid validity of the both the
bidder lapsed during the pendency of the
Tender process. Neither the departmental
official, nor the bidder took steps to extend the
bid validity. Since the Bid validity of the both
the bidder had lapsed, the tender was
cancelled which is evident from Letter No. 920
dated 12.03.2025 of Chief Engineer. Since the
Tender was cancelled on technical ground it
was a sham transaction and it was decided to
Invited fresh tender.
8. That in the present tender, petitioner and
another bidder namely Santosh Kumar
participated. The second bidder Santosh
Kumar was disqualified in the Technical bid
as he did not possess Technical experience
required in the bid. Only petitioner was
declared responsive in the Technical Bid.
9. That since this was a case of single tender,
Patna High Court CWJC No.18030 of 2025(5) dt.20-04-2026
3/4
the Chief Engineer referred the matter to the
higher authority i.e. Departmental Tender
Committee (DTC) in the light of provision
made in Departmental letter no 3162(S) dated
09.05.2016 which has been issued in the light
of Rule 131J(c) of the Bihar Financial Rules.
The DTC in its meeting held on 23.09.2025
(impugned decision in the present application)
decided that since the first time tender was
cancelled on ground of expiry of the Bid
validity, it was not a valid transaction and
therefore the Retender will be treated as First
Time Tender and direction was issued to invite
fresh Bid. All these facts are clearly mentioned
in the DTC proceeding, dated 23.09.2025
which is impugned letter in this writ
application.
10. The decision of DTC dated 23.09.2025 is
fully covered by the Judgment of this Hon'ble
Court passed in CWJC no. 13968 of 2025, on
19.09.2025, as referred above.
11. That evidently, the decision of DTC dated
23.09.2025 does not suffer from any legal
infirmity and is sustainable in eye of law.
12. That moreover, pursuance to the decision
of DTC held on 23.09.2025 to invite fresh
tender, it has been invited under NIT no
RCD/Lakhisarai/E Retendering /20/2025-26.
It is relevant to mention here that the
petitioner has also participated in this Re-
tender along with two other bidders. The
Evaluation of bid is under process.
13. That in view of participation of the
petitioner in the fresh bid invited on
17.01.2026, the present writ petition has lost
its significance and the instant writ petition
has become infructuous.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.18030 of 2025(5) dt.20-04-2026
4/4
4. Upon perusal of the materials available on record, it
appears that the petitioner has already participated in the
subsequent re-tender bearing NIT No. RCD/Lakhisarai/E
Retendering/20/2025-26 dated 17.01.2026 issued by the Road
Construction Department.
5. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view
that there is no reason for interfering with the tender process in
question at this stage.
6. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present writ
application and the same stands dismissed.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
8. Since the tender in question has already been
cancelled, any bank guarantee or other documents submitted in
respect of the said tender notice shall be returned to the
petitioner.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Shailendra Singh, J)
U.K./-BKS
U
Checking your session…