Patna High Court

Gopal KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 2 April 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: SUDHIR SINGH SHAILENDRA SINGH

Holding

The Court held that a work proposed to be dropped does not constitute an existing commitment under the CMBD, making the petitioner’s disqualification arbitrary and unlawful; consequently, the impugned decisions were set aside.

Summary

Gopal Kumar submitted a technical bid for a rural road‑bridge project under the Sulabh Samparakta Yojana and was initially declared technically qualified. After a complaint alleging non‑disclosure of a prior work, the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee re‑evaluated and disqualified him, invoking Clause 4.6(3) of the Combined Model Bidding Document (CMBD). The petitioner contended that the work in question had been proposed to be dropped by the department before the bid date and therefore did not constitute an “existing commitment” requiring disclosure. The Court examined Clauses 4.2(m) and 4.6 of the CMBD and held that “existing commitment” means a subsisting, enforceable obligation, which the dropped work was not. Accordingly, the disqualification was deemed arbitrary, violative of natural justice, and the impugned decisions of 06‑10‑2025 and 02‑12‑2025 were set aside. The writ petition was allowed, directing that the petitioner be treated as technically qualified and his financial bid considered. The Court also restrained the respondents from executing any work order pending final adjudication.

Issues considered

Whether the work under Agreement No. 23/SBD/2020‑21, proposed to be dropped, qualifies as an ‘existing commitment/ongoing work’ under Clause 4.2(m) and Clause 4.6 of the CMBD requiring disclosure.
Whether the disqualification of the petitioner for alleged non‑disclosure of such work is arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice.
Whether the re‑evaluation decisions dated 06‑10‑2025 and 02‑12‑2025 can be set aside by a writ of certiorari.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to be declared technically qualified and to have his financial bid considered.

Subjects

tender disqualification
technical bid
existing commitments
bid capacity
judicial review
arbitrariness
natural justice
writ of certiorari
mandamus
Sulabh Samparakta Yojana
CMBD

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20584 of 2025
======================================================
Gopal Kumar s/o Kedar Prasad Sharma, R/o Walipur, P.S. Pipariya, District-
Lakhisarai, Bihar 811311.

... ... Petitioner
Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department, Patna, Bihar.
4. The Chief Engineer (Technical), Rural Works Department.
5. The Chief Engineer- 3, Rural Works Department, Patna, Bihar.
6. Nodal Officer, Sulabh Samparkta Yojana Scheme, Rural Works Department.
7. The Superintending Engineer, work Zone, Ara, Rural Works Department.
8. The Superintending Engineer, Work Zone, Munger, Rural Works
Department.
9. Techinal Bid Review Committee, Rural Works Department, Patna.
10. Patliputra Infra Construction Private Limted, Gola Road Bailey Road, Patna-
801503.
11. S.B. Engicon Private Limited, Royal City, West Judges Colony, Saguna
Patna, 801503.

... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shekhar Singh, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Kumar Anjaney Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Shubham, Advocate
Mr. Ranvir Pratap Singh, Advocate
Ms. Shambhavi Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent No.10 : Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha-1, Advocate
For the Respondent No.11 : Mr. Bachan Jee Ojha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Amish Kumar, AC to AG
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)

Date : 02-04-2026
Patna High Court CWJC No.20584 of 2025 dt.02-04-2026
2/17

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. In the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the

following relief(s):-

"i. Issuance of an appropriate writ/s, order/s or
direction/s, particularly in the nature of writ of
Certiorari for quashing and setting aside the
impugned decision/order dated 06.10.2025 and
02.12.2025 passed by the Technical Evaluation
Committee, Rural Works Department whereby the
Petitioner's technical bid submitted under Notice
Inviting Tender Bearing No. RWD/SSY/HQ/ET/2025-
26 Dated 28.07.2025 for construction and six year
operation & management including surface renewal
for rural road/bridge under component of Sulabh
Samparakta Yojana (SSY) described as 'Konipar Baba
Sthan se Variyarpur Tak aur Gopalpari ka Konipur
PWD Sadak tak Path Nirman(Tender ID-143842) has
been arbitrarily, illegally and without authority of law
disqualified from the technical bid stage.
ii. Issuance of an appropriate writ/s, order/s or
direction/s, particularly in the nature of writ of
Mandamus to Declare the Petitioner, technically
qualified for participation in the tender process under
Notice Inviting Tender Bearing No.
RWD/SSY/HQ/ET/2025-26 Dated 28.07.2025 for
construction and six year operation & management
including surface renewal for rural road/bridge under
component of Sulabh Samparakta Yojana (SSY)
described as 'Konipar Baba Sthan se Variyarpur Tak
aur Gopalpari ka Konipur PWD Sadak tak Path
Nirman (Tender ID-143842) and to include the
Petitioner's bid in the financial bid evaluation stage of
the tender process without any further delay.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20584 of 2025 dt.02-04-2026
3/17

iii. Issuance of an appropriate writ/s, order/s or
direction/s, particularly in the nature of writ of
Mandamus, for declaration of respondent no.11 to be
the lowest bidder Notice Inviting Tender Bearing No.
RWD/SSY/HQ/ET/2025-26 Dated 28.07.2025 for
construction and six year operation & management
including surface renewal for rural road/bridge under
component of Sulabh Samparakta Yojana(SSY)
described as 'Konipar Baba Sthan se Variyarpur Tak
aur Gopalpari ka Konipur PWD Sadak tak Path
Nirman'(Tender ID-143842) to be illegal, arbitrary,
malafide, and void ab initio, being the outcome of a
tainted and procedurally defective evaluation process.
iv. Issuance of an appropriate writ/s, order/s or
direction/s, particularly in the nature of writ of
Mandamus to direct the respondent authorities to
reconsider the Petitioner's bid by declaring the
Petitioner technically qualified, open the Petitioner's
financial bid, and thereafter award the tender in
favour of the Petitioner.
v. To direct the Respondents restraining them from
giving effect to or executing any work order/contract
agreement pending final adjudication of the present
writ petition.
vi. Any other relief/reliefs as Your Lordships may think
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case."
3. The brief facts of the case are that the Rural Works

Department, Government of Bihar, issued a Notice Inviting Tender dated

28.07.2025 bearing No. RWD/SSY/HQ/ET/2025-26 for construction and

six-year operation and maintenance of a rural road/bridge project under

the Sulabh Samparakta Yojana (SSY). Pursuant thereto, the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.20584 of 2025 dt.02-04-2026
4/17

participated in the tender process and submitted its bid within the

stipulated time. Upon evaluation of technical bids, the Technical Bid

Evaluation Committee, in its meeting dated 08.09.2025, declared the

petitioner technically qualified.

4. Subsequently, a complaint dated 13.09.2025 was

submitted by another bidder alleging non-disclosure of certain prior work

by the petitioner. On the basis of the said complaint, a show cause notice

dated 16.09.2025 was issued to the petitioner, to which the petitioner

submitted a detailed reply on 18.09.2025 along with supporting materials,

stating inter alia that the work referred to in the complaint had already

been proposed to be dropped by the competent authority and did not

constitute an existing or ongoing commitment as on the date of bid

submission. However, upon re-evaluation of the technical bid on

06.10.2025, the petitioner was technically disqualified by invoking Clause

4.6(3) of the CMBD on the ground of alleged non-disclosure of ongoing

work. Further, in a subsequent re-evaluation held on 02.12.2025, the

petitioner continued to be technically disqualified, and financial bid was

opened.

5. Vide order dated 29.01.2026, notice was issued to

respondent Nos. 10 and 11. In pursuance thereof, learned counsels have

entered appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 10 and 11 by filing
Patna High Court CWJC No.20584 of 2025 dt.02-04-2026
5/17

Vakalatnama, which is taken on record. However, till date, no counter

affidavit has been filed on behalf of the private respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

contention of the respondent-Department that there was alleged non-

disclosure of work under Agreement No. 23/SBD/2020-21 is wholly

misconceived, inasmuch as the said work, namely Sharma PMGSY Road

to Godh Tola Harijan Tola Tak under Lakhisarai Division, had already

been proposed to be dropped by the concerned Executive Engineer vide

letter dated 18.06.2024, prior to the last date of submission of the bid.

Agreement No. 23/SBD/2020-21, the details whereof are reproduced as

under:-

SI. Name of Road Lenth Constru Maintanance Agreement Block
No. (KM) ction Cost Value
Cost
2. Sharma PMGSY 1.500 87,73,06 11,79,687 99,52,748 Barahiya
Road to Gadh Tola 1
Harizan Tola Tak

7. It is further submitted that the Executive Engineer, Rural

Works Department, Lakhisarai Division, vide Letter No. 1876 dated

29.08.2025 reiterated the letter dated 18.06.2024 and, had recommended

dropping of the said work. As such, no subsisting obligation remained

upon the petitioner. Extract of letter dated 18.06.2024 is reproduced

hereinbelow:

dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark dk dk;kZy;
xzkeh.k dk;Z foHkkx] dk;Z izeaMy] y[khljk;
____________________________________________________________
Patna High Court CWJC No.20584 of 2025 dt.02-04-2026
6/17

i=kad 1125¼vuq0½ y[khljk;@fnukad%& 18@06@24
izs"kd]
bZ0 vk'kqrks"k dqekj
dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark
xzkeh.k dk;Z foHkkx]

dk;Z izeaMy y[khljk;
lsok esa]
v/kh{k.k vfHk;ark
xzkeh.k dk;Z foHkkx]
dk;Z vapy] eqxa sjA

fo"k;%& MMGSY-NDB BRICS ;kstukUrxZr iFkksa dks Drop djus ds laca/k esAa

egk'k;]
mi;qZDr fo"k; ds laca/k esa dguk gS fd dk;Z izeaMy y[khljk; vUrxZr MMGSY-NDB
BRICS ds fuEu iFkksa dks Drop izLrko izfrosnu fofgr izi= esa rS;kj dj vko';d dkjZokbZ gsrq
lefiZr dh tkrh gSA iFkksa dh lwph fuEu gS%&

dz0 iFk dk uke iSdst la[;k
1 Jaitpur Khutha Road to Dhobi Tola Dhaanuk Tola Tirasali MMSGY-NDB-BRRP-113
Tola Primary School Tak
2 L028 Nahar Path to Mandal Tola (Behrama) MMSGY-NDB-BRRP-113
3 T01 to Koriya Dayal Tola MMSGY-NDB-BRRP-113
4 T012 ODR to Ofapur Mushari MMSGY-NDB-BRRP-113
5 L091 to Mankatha MMSGY-NDB-BRRP-113
6 Sharma PMGSY Road to Gadh Tola Harizan Tola Tak MMSGY-NDB-BRRP-192
7 PMGSY Jankidih to North Yadav Tola Basathpul MMSGY-NDB-BRRP-193

vuq0&;FkksDRkA fo'oklHkktu
g0@&18@06@24
dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark
xzkeh.k dk;Z foHkkx]
dk;Z izeaMy y[khljk;

To be Dropped Road List of MMGSY-NDB (BRICS)

SI.No. Name of Roads District Division Project ID Administrati Administrati Length (In Expenditure If Reasons for Remarks
ve Approval ve Approval Km) Any dropping
Cost (In Reference (in lakh)
lakh) i.e. Letter
No./Date of
Serial no

1 Jaitpur Khutha Lakhisarai Lakhisarai 20804001902 58.215 1054/04.12. 0.917 0.000 Constructed
Road to Dhobi 2018 & Sr By
Tola Dharmuk No-24 Panchayat
Tola Tiresali Tola Scheme

2 L028 Nahar Path Lakhisarai Lakhisarai 20804001911 117.00 1054/04.12. 2.035 0.000 Habitation
to Mandal Tola 2018 & Sr Already
(Behrama) No-33 Connected

3 T01 to Koriya Lakhisarai Lakhisarai 20804001912 69.950 1054/04.12. 1.007 0.000 Habitation
Dayal Tola 2018 & Sr Already
No-34 Connected

4 T012 ODR to Lakhisarai Lakhisarai 20804001913 42.030 1054/04.12. 0.569 0.000 Constructed
Patna High Court CWJC No.20584 of 2025 dt.02-04-2026
7/17

Ofapur Mushari 2018 & Sr By
No-35 Panchayat
Scheme

5 T019 Mankatha Lakhisarai Lakhisarai 20804001914 66.020 1054/04.12. 1.359 0.000 Railway
2018 & Sr Land
No-36 Allignment
Not
Available

6 Sharma PMGSY Lakhisarai Lakhisarai 2080400190023 100.667 101/24.01.2 1.500 0.000 Constructed
Road to Gadh Tola 020 & Sr By Other
Harizan Tola Tak No-32 Scheme

7 PMGSY Jankidih Lakhisarai Lakhisarai 2080400190025 103.843 101/24.01.2 1.377 0.000 Constructed
to North Yadav 020 & Sr By Other
Tola Basathpul No-34 Scheme

1. Certified that the following works sanctioned by Rural Works
Department under MMGSY-NDB (BRICS) are proposed to be dropped by division
for reasons indicated in each case.
2. If Any expenditure already incurred on these roads from the funds
released by department for any activity has been recouped by the division. This has
been reflected on the MIS also (If no expenditure has been incurred the same may be
stated).
3. It is further certified that fresh proposals for sanction of these roads
will not be sought by the division under MMGSY-NDB (BRICS)
4. It is also certified that the amount incurred in respect of the roads
already dropped by the Ministry has been recouped from the division and credited to
MMGSY funds and is reflected on MIS.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
RWD (WD), Lakhisarai EE S.E.
RWD (WD), LAKHISARAI"

8. Further, extract of letter no. 1876 dated 29.08.2025 is

reproduced hereinbelow:

“dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark dk dk;kZy;
xzkeh.k dk;Z foHkkx] dk;Z izeaMy] y[khljk;
i=kad 1876¼vuq0½------ @ y[khljk;@fnukad%& 29-08-25 @
izs"kd]
bZ0 vk'kqrks"k dqekj
dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark]
xzkeh.k dk;Z foHkkx]
dk;Z izeaMy y[khljk;
lsok esa]
v/kh{k.k vfHk;ark
xzkeh.k dk;Z foHkkx]
dk;Z vapy] eqxa sjA

fo"k;%& MMGSY-NDB (BRICS) ;kstuk vUrxZr vkB ¼8½ iFkksa dks Drop djus ds laca/k esaA
Patna High Court CWJC No.20584 of 2025 dt.02-04-2026
8/17

egk'k;]
mi;qZDr fo"k;d izklafxd i= ds }kjk MMGSY-NDB (BRICS) ;kstuk vUrxZr fuEu vkB ¼8½ iFkksa dks Drop
djus gsrq fofgr izi= esa okafNr lwpuk vxzrsj dkjZokbZ gsrq lefiZr dh tkrh gSA
1. Jaitpur Khutha Road to Dhobi Tola Dhaanuk Tola Tirasali Tola Primary School Tak
2. L028 Nahar Path to Mandal Tola (Behrama)
3. T01 to Koriya Dayal Tola
4. T012 ODR to Ofapur Mushari
5. L091 to Mankatha
6. L041 Pathua to Kanharpur
7. PMGSY PMGSY JANKIDIH to NORTH YADAV TOLA BASTHPUL
8. Sharma PMGSY Road to Gadh Tola Harizan Tola Tak
vr% vuqjks/k gS fd mijksDRk iFk dks Drop djus dh d`ik dh tk,A
vuq0&;FkksDRkA fo'oklHkktu
g0@&29@08@25
dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark
xzkeh.k dk;Z foHkkx]
dk;Z izeaMy y[khljk;

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that once

the department itself had taken a conscious decision to drop the work, the

same could not have been treated as an ‘existing commitment’ or

‘ongoing work’ requiring disclosure. The disqualification on such ground

is, therefore, arbitrary and unsustainable, particularly when the alleged

omission does not constitute a material deviation that would affect the bid

capacity of the petitioner.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the

disqualification is in strict conformity with the terms and conditions of the

Notice Inviting Tender and the provisions of the CMBD. It is submitted

that Clause 4.2(m) of the CMBD mandates disclosure of existing

commitments and ongoing construction works, which reads as under:

"4.2(m) Existing commitments and ongoing construction work
being undertaken by the bidder shall be submitted in
prescribed format as described in qualification criteria."
Patna High Court CWJC No.20584 of 2025 dt.02-04-2026
9/17

11. It is further submitted that Clause 4.6 of the CMBD

provides for determination of available bid capacity, wherein the value of

existing commitments and ongoing works is a crucial component, and

Explanation 3 thereto specifically requires disclosure even of such works

which are pending. Clause 4.6 of the CMBD, reads as under:-

"4.6 Bidders who meet the minimum qualification criteria will
be qualified only if their available bid capacity is more than
the total bid value. The available bid capacity will be
calculated as under :
Assessed Available Bid capacity = (A*N*M – B)
Where
A = Maximum value of civil engineering works executed in
any one year during the last five financial years {updated
@8% per year to the price level of the preceding financial year
in which bids are invited as specified in NIT} taking into
account the completed as well as works in progress.
N = Number of years prescribed for completion of Initial
Rectification, Minor improvement, Surface renewal,
Construction of bridge/drainage /protection for which bids are
invited (period up to 6 months to be taken as half-year and
more than 6 months as one year).
M =3
B = Value, at the current price level, of existing commitments
and on- going works to be completed during the period of
completion of Initial Rectification, Minor improvement,
Surface renewal, Construction of bridge/drainage /protection
for which bids are invited.
Explanation-
1. The Existing Commitment shall be the value of the
remaining work, which has already been awarded to the bidder
as on the date of submission of bid.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20584 of 2025 dt.02-04-2026
10/17

2. The value of the remaining work should be calculated on
the basis of the value of work as recorded in measurement
book till the date of submission of bid, by bidder.
3. In case of Land dispute, Forest Land issue, pending for
Foreclosure or drop etc., the bidder must mention such work
in the remarks column of the Existing commitments and
ongoing construction work related format in clause 1.3.2(A) of
Section III Qualification Information. However, In this regard,
if the bidders attach any request letter in bid regarding not
subtracting the remaining amount to calculate the available bid
capacity, the same may be considered after due verification.
4. Further the value of any work awarded to the bidder in the
period between the submission of bid and award of the present
work shall also be counted as existing commitment.
5. In case of EPC and similar nature Contracts, the existing
commitment shall be counted from the appointment date or as
mentioned in respective contract document. Construction of
road/bridge for which bids are invited."

12. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that

the State Government has also issued a clarification dated 20.05.2025

explaining the scope of ‘existing commitments/ ongoing construction

work’, wherein it has been clarified that bidders are required to disclose

not only works in progress but also such works which, for any reason

including land disputes or other impediments, are not being executed,

along with reasons for pendency. The contents of the said letter dated

20.05.2025 are reproduced as under:

"xzkeh.k dk;Z foHkkx
fcgkj ljdkj
izsl foKfIr
Patna High Court CWJC No.20584 of 2025 dt.02-04-2026
11/17

,rn~ lacaf/kr laosndksa dks xzkeh.k dk;Z foHkkx] fcgkj }kjk fuxZr Combined Model
Bidding Document (CMBD) dh dafMdk 4-2(m) dks fuEu :i ls Li"V fd;k tkrk gS%&
"Existing Commitments and ongoing construction work being
undertaken by the bidder shall be submitted in prescribed format as
described in qualification Criteria"
bl laca/k esa ;g Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd foHkkxh; fufonkvksa esa Hkkx ysus okys
fufonkdkj fufonk esa Existing Commitments and ongoing construction work esa
Work in Progress okys dk;kZsa ds vfrfjDr mu lHkh dk;ksZa tks fdlh Hkh dkj.k ;Fkk Hkwfe
fookn] ou foHkkx ,oa vU; dkj.kksa ls izxfr esa ugha gS ,oa yfEcr gS mu dk;ksZa dks yfEcr j[kus
ds dkj.kksa dks Li"V djrs gq, vius Existing Commitments and ongoing
construction work esa foLr`r :i ls mYys[k vfuok;Zr% djsaxsA
g0@&
20@05@2025
vfHk;ark izeq[k&lg&
vij vk;qDr&lg&fo'ks"k lfpo
xzkeh.k dk;Z foHkkx

13. It is, therefore, submitted by the learned counsel for the

respondents that the action of the respondents is fair, reasonable, and in

consonance with the tender conditions, leaving no scope for judicial

interference in a contractual matter of this nature.

14. Learned counsel for the private respondents adopts the

arguments advanced by the counsel for the respondent-State.

15. The limited issue which arises for consideration before this

Court is as to whether the respondents were justified in disqualifying the

petitioner on the ground of non-disclosure of a work under Agreement

No. 23/SBD/2020-21, which had already been proposed to be dropped by

the competent authority prior to the date of submission of the bid, and

whether such work could be treated as an ‘existing commitment/ongoing

work’ within the meaning of the relevant clauses of the CMBD.

16. The issue in the present case relates to the interpretation of

the expression ‘existing commitments/ongoing construction work’ as
Patna High Court CWJC No.20584 of 2025 dt.02-04-2026
12/17

stated in Clause 4.2(m) and Clause 4.6 of the Combined Model Bidding

Document (CMBD). Clause 4.2(m) requires a bidder to disclose ‘existing

commitments and ongoing construction work being undertaken’, whereas

Clause 4.6 provides for determination of ‘available bid capacity’,

wherein the value of ‘existing commitments and ongoing works to be

completed’ is to be taken into account. Explanation 1 to Clause 4.6

further clarifies that ‘existing commitment’ means the value of the

remaining work already awarded to the bidder as on the date of

submission of the bid.

17. From a combined reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is

clear that the expression ‘existing commitment’ refers to a subsisting and

enforceable obligation which has a direct bearing on the bidder’s capacity

to execute the work for which tender has been issued. The emphasis is on

the value of work ‘to be completed’, thereby indicating that only such

works which are ongoing and capable of execution fall within its scope.

18. Explanation 3 to Clause 4.6 provides that works pending

for foreclosure or proposed to be dropped in case of land dispute or forest

land issue, are also to be mentioned in the remarks column. Further a

clarification had been issued dated 20.05.2025, which seemingly expands

the meaning of ‘existing commitments’. Such press release cannot

supplant the conditions of CMBD, and at best it can clarify the conditions

of the CMBD.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20584 of 2025 dt.02-04-2026
13/17

19. Further, Explanation 3 to Clause 4.6 anticipates only two

situations, i.e., in case of land dispute or forest land issue, where there is

a necessity of the work to be done. However, in case, where the work has

already been completed by another scheme, it cannot be said to be

included within the meaning of ‘existing commitment/ongoing work’.

The letter dated 18.06.2024 clearly stipulates that the said work was not

necessary to be done, as the work was already done under another

scheme.

20. Additionally, the purpose of Explanation 3 read with

clarification dated 20.05.2025 is to ensure proper disclosure and

transparency. The disclosure is for all such works, which are presently

being executed, along with reasons for pendency, if any. A work which

has already been constructed by another scheme cannot be said to

included in such disclosure.

21. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the work under

Agreement No. 23/SBD/2020-21, namely Sharma PMGSY Road to Godh

Tola Harijan Tola Tak under Lakhisarai Division, was proposed to be

dropped by the Executive Engineer vide letter dated 18.06.2024, which

was subsequently accepted by the respondent-State on 04.12.2025. It is

also an admitted position that as on the date of submission of the bid, i.e.,

14.08.2025, no work was to be executed pursuant to the said agreement

as per the letter of the Executive Engineer dated 18.06.2024.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20584 of 2025 dt.02-04-2026
14/17

22. It is further significant that though the proposal to drop the

said work was sent in the year 2024, the same was formally approved

only on 04.12.2025. The delay in approval is attributable to the

respondent authorities and cannot be put against the petitioner. In such

circumstances, the petitioner cannot be penalized for such non-disclosure

of a work which had already been proposed to be dropped and in respect

of which no subsisting obligation remained in practical terms.

23. In matters relating to award of contracts, the scope of

judicial review is limited. However, it is well settled that the decision-

making process must be fair, reasonable, and free from arbitrariness. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Montecarlo Ltd. v. NTPC Ltd. reported in

(2016) 15 SCC 272, has held that though the employer is the best judge

of the interpretation of tender conditions, such interpretation must be

reasonable and not arbitrary, and the Court can interfere where the

decision is irrational. The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows:

“26. We respectfully concur with the aforesaid statement of
law. We have reasons to do so. In the present scenario, tenders
are floated and offers are invited for highly complex technical
subjects. It requires understanding and appreciation of the
nature of work and the purpose it is going to serve. It is
common knowledge in the competitive commercial field that
technical bids pursuant to the notice inviting tenders are
scrutinised by the technical experts and sometimes third-party
assistance from those unconnected with the owner's
organisation is taken. This ensures objectivity. Bidder's
expertise and technical capability and capacity must be
Patna High Court CWJC No.20584 of 2025 dt.02-04-2026
15/17

assessed by the experts. In the matters of financial assessment,
consultants are appointed. It is because to check and ascertain
that technical ability and the financial feasibility have
sanguinity and are workable and realistic. There is a multi-
prong complex approach; highly technical in nature. The
tenders where public largesse is put to auction stand on a
different compartment. Tender with which we are concerned, is
not comparable to any scheme for allotment. This arena which
we have referred requires technical expertise. Parameters
applied are different. Its aim is to achieve high degree of
perfection in execution and adherence to the time schedule.
But, that does not mean, these tenders will escape scrutiny of
judicial review. Exercise of power of judicial review would be
called for if the approach is arbitrary or mala fide or
procedure adopted is meant to favour one. The decision-
making process should clearly show that the said maladies are
kept at bay...”

24. In the present case, the interpretation adopted by the

respondents treats even a work which had been proposed to be dropped

and was not being executed as an ‘existing commitment’. Such an

interpretation, in the opinion of this Court, is unreasonable and contrary

to the object of Clause 4.6, which is to assess the actual capacity of a

bidder. The purpose of disclosure of existing commitments is to assess

the real workload of the bidder. A work which is not being executed and

in respect of which the department itself has initiated steps for dropping

(as being constructed by another scheme) cannot be equated with an
Patna High Court CWJC No.20584 of 2025 dt.02-04-2026
16/17

ongoing and subsisting commitment where there is necessity of work to

be done.

25. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view

that the said work cannot be treated as an ‘existing commitment’ or

‘ongoing work’ within the meaning of Clause 4.6. Mere existence of an

agreement, without any subsisting or enforceable obligation, would not

attract the requirement of disclosure so as to entail disqualification.

26. It is further noted that in the impugned decision after re-

evaluation of the technical bid of the petitioner, dated 06.10.2025, there is

no consideration on the plea taken by the petitioner, nor they have

assigned any reason to reject the contention of the petitioner. Therefore,

the impugned decision is also in violation of the principles of natural

justice.

27. The action of the respondents in treating the said work as

an ‘existing commitment’ and disqualifying the petitioner on such ground

is, therefore, arbitrary and not in consonance with the terms of the

bidding document.

28. In view of the discussions made herein above, this Court is

of the view that the non-disclosure of the said work does not amount to a

material lapse affecting the petitioner’s bid, and consequently, the

impugned decisions dated 06.10.2025 as contained in Annexure – P/6,
Patna High Court CWJC No.20584 of 2025 dt.02-04-2026
17/17

and 02.12.2025 as contained in Annexure – P/8 series, cannot be

sustained in law and are, hereby, set aside.

29. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed.

30. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(Sudhir Singh, J.)

(Shailendra Singh, J.)

Gaurav Kumar/-

AFR/NAFR A.F.R.
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 07.04.2026
Transmission Date N.A.

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.