Patna High Court
Sushil Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The petition was dismissed as infructuous because the tender notice had been cancelled.
Summary
Sushil Kumar Singh filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of his technical bid for a Rural Works Department tender (NIT RWD/MGSY/HQ/ET/13/2025‑26). He alleged that the rejection was arbitrary, violated natural justice, and contravened a prior High Court direction dated 10‑02‑2026 in CWJC No.1443 of 2026. The petition sought to set aside the rejecting order, compel acceptance of his technical bid, and maintain status quo on the work. The Court observed that the tender notice had been cancelled, rendering the petition moot. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition as infructuous.
Issues considered
- Whether the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid was arbitrary and violative of natural justice
- Whether the Court should set aside the order of the Technical Bid Committee and direct acceptance of the technical bid
- Whether the petition remains maintainable in view of the cancellation of the tender notice
Subjects
- natural justice
- technical bid
- tender cancellation
- writ petition
- public procurement
- status quo
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3752 of 2026
======================================================
Sushil Kumar Singh Son of Sri Uma Shankar Singh, Resident of House No.
B-151, Mohalla-Buddha Colony, Near Ratan Villa Apartment, P.S.-Buddha
Colony, District-Patna (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Rural Works Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Technical Bid Committee, Rural Works Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Engineer in Chief cum Additional Secretary cum Special Secretary,
Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Nodal Officer, Mukhyamantri Gramin Sadak Yojna (MGSY), Rural
Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Chief Engineer-4, Rural Works Department, Purnea Range, Purnea.
6. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Circle
Madhupura, Madhepura.
7. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division
Triveniganj, District-Supaul.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhola Kumar,Adv.
For the Respondent/s :
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
4 29-06-2026 The present writ petition has been filed seeking the
following reliefs:-
“a) To set aside the impugned order/proceeding dated
18.02.2026 [Annexure P10 to the writ application] passed by
the Respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner's representation
dated 09.01.2026 was rejected in a most mechanical,
arbitrary, and non-speaking manner, upholding the decision
of the Respondent Technical Bid Committee dated 02.01.2026
[Annexure P5] to the extent the technical bid of the Petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.3752 of 2026(4) dt.29-06-2026
2/2
with respect to NIT bearing RWD/MGSY/HQ / ET / 13 / 2025-
26 dated 01.09.2025 [Sl. No. 66] was rejected,without
following the principles of natural justice and in violation of
this Hon'ble Court's directions dated 10.02.2026 in CWJC No.
1443 of 2026 [Annexure P7].
b) For a direction upon the Respondents to accept the
technical bid of the Petitioner with respect to NIT bearing
RWD /MGSY/HQ/ET/13/2025-26 dated 01.09.2025 [Sl. No.
66] and consider the financial bid of the Petitioner forthwith
with all Consequential benefits.
c) For a further direction upon the Respondents to abstain
from allotting work or proceeding further with respect to NIT
bearing RWD/MGSY/HQ/ET /13/2025-26 dated 01.09.2025
[Sl. No. 66] for 'Constructions at 4 (four) sites within
Triveniganj Works Division' during the pendency of the
instant writ application, and to maintain status quo as on
date.”
2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the notice inviting tender in question has already
been cancelled and the present writ petition has been rendered
infructuous, hence it is prayed that the present writ petition be
disposed of.
3. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
disposed of.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
(Raj Kumar, J)
kanchan/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.