Patna High Court
Ashish RanjanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The Court held that the objection must be considered and directed the State to pass a reasoned order, thereby disposing the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Ashish Ranjan, challenged the decision of the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee that had declared the technical bid of Respondent No.7 responsive despite alleged non‑compliance with essential contract conditions (Clauses 4.2 and 4.7 of the CMBD). He filed an objection on 22‑12‑2025, seeking quashing of the committee's decision, a reasoned order on his objection, and a restraining order against finalising the tender. The High Court examined whether the committee had lawfully ignored the petitioner’s objection and the eligibility requirements. The Court directed the State (Respondent No.1) to consider the objection, afford a hearing to all stakeholders, and pass an appropriate order within ten days. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, with the Court’s directions to the State remaining in force.
Issues considered
- Whether the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee erred in declaring the bid responsive despite alleged non‑compliance with essential contract clauses.
- Whether the petitioner’s objection must be considered before the tender can be finalised.
- Whether a restraining order against further tender proceedings is warranted pending resolution of the objection.
Subjects
- public procurement
- technical bid evaluation
- objection
- writ petition
- tendering
- contract eligibility
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.363 of 2026
======================================================
Ashish Ranjan, male, aged about 40 years, Son of Amar Kumar Singh,
Resident of Ward No. 02, Vidyapuri, P.S.- Supaul, District- Supaul, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Engineer In-Chief, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer-4, Purnia, District- Purnia, Bihar.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Circle
Madhepura, District Madhepura, Bihar.
5. The Nodal Officer, Mukhya Mantri Gram Sampark Yojana, Rural Works
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
6. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division Supaul,
District Supaul, Bihar.
7. M/s RKS Engicon Pvt. Ltd., having its Head Office at Flat No. 302, 3rd
Floor, Adya Niwas, Kavi Raman Path, Boring Road, Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General
For the Respondent : Mr. Girijish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Akash Anand, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
2 29-01-2026 In the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed
for following relief(s):-
“(i) Quashing of the Decision of the Technical
Bid Evaluation Committee Dated 16.12.2025
as contained in Memo No. 3274 dated
17.12.2025 by which, ignoring the objection
filed by the Petitioner, and relaxing the
Patna High Court CWJC No.363 of 2026(2) dt.29-01-2026
2/3
essential conditions of the eligibility, the
Technical Bid of Respondent No. 07 has been
held to be responsive.
(ii) Direction upon the Respondent to dispose
of by a reasoned and speaking order before
finalizing the tender, the objection filed by the
Petitioner on 22.12.2025 against the decision
of the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee
dated 16.12.2025.
(iii) Restraining the Respondents from
proceeding further and finalizing the tender
process arising out of Notice Inviting Tender
No. RWD/MMGSY (Awashesh-Gen)/
HQ/ET/2025-26/07 dated 08.07.2025 during
the pendency of the present writ application
and/or the without the leave of this Hon’ble
Court.”
2. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner
that the essential conditions of the contract, namely, Clauses 4.2
& 4.7 of the CMBD, as well as the prescribed format of the
credit facility and the competence of the person who submitted
the same, have been overlooked. Despite non-compliance with
the said conditions, Respondent No.7 has been declared
responsive along with the petitioner.
3. In this regard, the petitioner has also filed an
objection vide ‘Annexure P/5’ before Respondent No.1, which
is pending consideration.
Patna High Court CWJC No.363 of 2026(2) dt.29-01-2026
3/3
4. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case,
Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the objection filed by
the petitioner and pass an appropriate order, in accordance with
law, after granting an opportunity of hearing to all the
stakeholders, preferably within a period of ten days from the
date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
5. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the
present writ application stands disposed of.
6. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J.)
(Ritesh Kumar, J.)
Gaurav Kumar,
Krishnakant/-
U
Checking your session…