Patna High Court
Munjee SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The Court declined to quash the memo and instead directed the Executive Engineer to consider the petitioner's representation within six weeks, thereby disposing of the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Munjee Singh, challenged a memo dated 03.02.2026 that declared his technical bid in a government tender ineligible, seeking a certiorari to quash the memo and a mandamus directing the authorities to consider his representation dated 04.02.2026. The petition also alleged that the rejection was based on a discrepancy in civil work amounts without any explanation, invoking clause 4-7(i) of the CMBD of MMGSY (AWASESH). The Court examined the records and noted that the petitioner had already submitted a representation to the Executive Engineer (Respondent No.6), which was pending consideration. Instead of quashing the memo, the Court directed the Executive Engineer to consider the representation and decide within six weeks, providing an opportunity of hearing to all stakeholders. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without granting the reliefs sought. The interlocutory applications, if any, were also disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the memo rejecting the petitioner's technical bid is liable to be quashed by a writ of certiorari.
- Whether the authorities are obligated to consider the petitioner's representation and protest dated 04.02.2026.
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing the consideration of the representation.
Subjects
- writ petition
- certiorari
- mandamus
- technical bid
- tender
- public works
- representation
- administrative law
- Bihar
- Rural Work Department
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3419 of 2026
======================================================
Munjee Singh Son of Late Dadan Singh, Resident of Mohalla-Kashyap
Nagar, Boring Karha, New Police Line Pakari, Ara, P.S. Nawada, District-
Bhojpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar thorough the Secretary, Rural Work Department, Patna,
Bihar.
2. The Secretary, Rural Work Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Engineer in Chief, Rural Work Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
4. The Secretary of Engineer in Chief-I, Rural Work Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Work Department, Word Circle Ara.
6. The Executive Engineer, Rural Work Department, Work Division, Piro,
District-Bhojpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dudh Nath Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumar Pankaj, AC to SC-5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
2 17-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The following reliefs have been sought in the
present writ application:
"i) For issuance of direction/ directions or
order/orders or an appropriate writ/ writs
particularly in the nature of certiorari for quashing
the memo no. 198 dated 03.02.2026 issued under
the signature of Chief Engineer-I, Patna, Rural
Work Department, Patna, Chief Engineer Rural
Patna High Court CWJC No.3419 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026
2/3
Work Department, Patna and Superintending
Engineer Rural Work Department, Work Circle, Ara
whereby and where under Technical bid submitted
by the petitioner in tender declared ineligible even
after statutory eligibility declared by technical bid
evaluation committee keeping in view of the
relevant clause of eligibility as per CMBD as well
as memo no. 199 dated 03.02.2026 issued under
same authority whereby and where under Technical
bid of Regain Const. Pvt. Ltd. (Bid ID-634801)
(Petitioner's firm) in respect of Tender I.D.
1244884 has been rejected on account of difference
of amount found in Civil Work and payment
certificate as per financial year 2019-20 to
financial year 2023-24 of ATO 26AS in the light of
clause 4-7(i) of CMBD of MMGSY (AWASESH)
without any explanation to the petitioner.
ii) For issuance of direction or order or writ
particularly in the nature of mandamus for
commanding and directing the respondents to
consider the representation cum protest dated
04.02.2026 of the petitioner accordance with law.
iii) For any other incidental and consequential
relief to which the petitioner is found fit under the
facts and circumstances of this case."
3. Upon perusal of records, it is evident that the
petitioner has already made a representation before the
Respondent No. 6 (Annexure-P/7 to the writ petition), which is
pending consideration.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3419 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026
3/3
4. Accordingly, the Respondent No. 6 is directed to
consider the aforesaid representation made by the petitioner and
decide the same within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order, in accordance with
law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the
stakeholders.
5. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the
present writ petition stands disposed of.
6. Interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
( Shailendra Singh, J)
annu/Rajesh
U
Checking your session…