Patna High Court
Rama Shankar ChoudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The court held that the petitioner had contractually agreed to the reduced bid rate, leaving no merit for the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Rama Shankar Choudhary, filed a writ petition seeking payment at his quoted bid rate of 4.48% for a water supply scheme contract, alleging that the respondents were paying a lower amount based on a disqualified bidder, Sunita Kumari. The respondents contended that a committee decision required the petitioner to match Sunita Kumari's lower bid, which the petitioner accepted and incorporated into the agreement dated 08‑02‑2020. The court examined the agreement and the committee minutes, finding that the petitioner had expressly agreed to the reduced amount of Rs.1,59,44,750 against an estimated cost of Rs.1,66,91,100. Since the payment terms were contractually settled, the court concluded there was no arbitrary or illegal action by the respondents. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with a direction that any outstanding dues be paid as per the agreement.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to payment at his original bid rate despite a committee decision to match a lower bid.
- Whether the respondents' payment at the reduced rate constitutes arbitrary or illegal action.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable to challenge the payment terms under the contract.
Subjects
- public procurement
- tender
- bid rate
- contractual agreement
- arbitrary action
- writ petition
- civil writ jurisdiction
- payment dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2838 of 2025
======================================================
Rama Shankar Choudhary S/o Late Aanand Choudhary, R/o Village-
Kamarthu, Post- Kamarthu, P.S.- Ghighat, Dist- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Public Health
Engineering Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Engineer-in-Chief-Cum-Special Secretary, Public Health Engineering
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
5. The Zonal Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Zone, Darbhanga.
6. The Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circe, Darbhanga.
7. The Executive Engineer, Public Health, Division, Samastipur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Siyaram Pandey, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (4).
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
6 12-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
“To make the actual payment
to the petitioner at the rate he quoted i.e.
4.48% as per the petitioner’s bid-rate of
the work done as per the agreement
dated 08.02.2020 not on the bid quoted
by the other bidder but the respondent is
making payment at the bid-rate of one
Sunita Kumari who was held invalid as
Patna High Court CWJC No.2838 of 2025(6) dt.12-02-2026
2/4
she was not fulfilling the requisite
criterion, in a wrong and arbitrary
manner, as per the agreement between
the Executive Engineer, P.H. Division,
Samastipur and the petitioner for
execution of the work of design,
construction, supply, testing
commissioning of water supply scheme
with electric driven pumps and arsenic
removal treatment plant having
technology based on Nano technology of
CSIR on turnkey basis with 3 months
trial run after commissioning and
comprehensive operation and
maintenance of 60 months after
successful completion of trial run period
under Mukhya Mantri Nischay Yojna
under P.H. Division, Samastipur.”
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that pursuant to the NIT issued by the
respondents, the petitioner has participated and he was selected
as L-1 after the other two bidders were disqualified. Learned
counsel submits that instead of paying the petitioner as per the
quotation submitted by him, the respondents are paying less
amount i.e. 4.48% below the estimated cost which was
submitted by one Sunita Kumari who was subsequently
disqualified. Learned counsel submits that the act of the
respondents in paying the petitioner less amount than what he
has quoted is not only illegal, arbitrary but contrary to the
clauses mentioned in the NIT. Learned counsel, therefore, prays
Patna High Court CWJC No.2838 of 2025(6) dt.12-02-2026
3/4
this Hon’ble Court to allow the present writ petition and direct
the respondents to pay the balance amount due to the petitioner
as per the bid amount quoted by him.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the Respondent-State submits that pursuant to the NIT issued,
three persons have participated in the tender process out of
which two persons were disqualified and the petitioner was
selected, thereafter, the Committee took a decision to accept the
bid of the petitioner provided he matches the amount quoted by
one Sunita Kumari. That the petitioner has agreed for the same
and has also executed the agreement with the authority. Learned
counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the Annexure-
P/3 which is the agreement entered between the parties on
08.02.2020. Learned counsel submits that the amounts which
are been paid to the petitioner are as per the agreement entered
on 08.02.2020. Learned counsel submits that no merits in the
present writ petition which warrants granting of any relief to the
petitioner herein.
5. A perusal of the agreement dated 08.02.2020
entered between the parties and also the decision taken by the
Committee vide minutes dated 12.09.2019 reveals that the
Committee had taken a decision to accept the bid of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2838 of 2025(6) dt.12-02-2026
4/4
petitioner provided he matches the figure which was quoted by
one Sunita Kumari which is 4.48% below the estimated cost. It
appears from the record that the petitioner has accepted the
same and has entered into the agreement with the authorities on
08.02.2020. That the estimated cost shown as per the agreement
is Rs.1,66,91,100/- and the approved amount is Rs.
1,59,44,750/- and the petitioner has agreed for the same.
6. Having regard to the same, this Court does not find
any merit in the present writ petition which warrants any
interference by this Court, the present writ petition is
accordingly dismissed.
7. It is needless to mention that the authorities shall
pay the dues to the petitioner as per the agreement dated
08.02.2020, if not already paid.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
shakir/-
U
Checking your session…