Patna High Court
M/s Solanki Engicon Private LimitedversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The writ petition was disposed of, with the court directing the respondent to decide the pending complaint within fifteen days, thereby not granting the petitioner's reliefs.
Summary
M/s Solanki Engicon Private Ltd filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of its technical bid for a MMGSY tender on the ground that a discrepancy between its reported annual turnover in the annual return and the TDS certificate did not constitute a false representation under Clause 4.7 of the Combined Model Bidding Document. The petitioner sought quashing of the memo, a mandamus directing consideration of its bid, and a stay on the opening of financial bids. The court noted that the petitioner had already lodged a complaint against the same order, which remained pending before the respondent authority. The bench directed the respondent to dispose of the pending complaint within fifteen days and consequently disposed of the writ application without granting the reliefs sought. The decision effectively upheld the earlier rejection pending further administrative review.
Issues considered
- Whether the discrepancy between the annual turnover shown in the annual return and the TDS certificate amounts to a misrepresentation under Clause 4.7 of the Combined Model Bidding Document.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to consider its technical bid.
- Whether the writ petition should be dismissed in view of the pending complaint filed by the petitioner.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- tender
- technical bid
- misrepresentation
- Clause 4.7
- mandamus
- writ jurisdiction
- annual turnover discrepancy
- procurement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.386 of 2026
======================================================
M/s Solanki Engicon Private Limited (a Company incorporated under the
Indian Companies Act, 2013) having its Registered office at House No. 11,
Vill.- Chhotkipatti, Bagah, Pashchim Champaran, Bihar - 845101 through its
Director Mr. Samir Suman, aged about 35 years, S/o Manoj Kumar Rao.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department
5th Floor, Vishvshwarya Bhawan, Bailey Road Patna.
2. Engineer-in-Chief cum Additional Commissioner cum Special Secretary,
Rural Works Department, 5th Floor, Vishvshwarya Bhawan, Bailey Road,
Patna.
3. Chief Engineer, Rural Works Department, Muzaffarpur.
4. Superintendent Engineer, Rural Works Department, Bettiah.
5. Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Bettiah.
6. Nodal Officer, Mukhya Mantri Gram Sampark Yojna, Rural Work
Department, Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Saurav, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Addl. Advocate General-13
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
2 02-02-2026 The present writ application has been filed for the
following reliefs:
“(a) For Quashing of Memo bearing Memo no.
3235, Dated 16.12.2025 issued by the Respondent
No. 2 whereby and where-under the Technical Bid
of the Petitioner of Tender issued under MMGSY
Patna High Court CWJC No.386 of 2026(2) dt.02-02-2026
2/5
by Work Division- Bettiah bearing Package No.
MMGSY (AWSESH-SC)- Betia-891 has been
rejected on the nonest ground that there is
difference of Anual Turnover in the Annual Return
and 26AS (TDS Certificate) of the petitioner in the
Financial Years 2023-24 and 2022-23, whereas the
petitioner’s tender has been rejected on the basis
violation of Clause 4.7 of the Combined Model
Bidding Document (hereinby referred to as
“CMBD.”) and the said Clause states about the
misleading and false representation in the forms,
statements, affidavit and attachments submitted in
proof of the qualification requirement and the
petitioner had not made any false submission
during the declaration of the turnover and the
difference in Annual Turn Over reflected in Annual
Return and 26AS (TDS Certificate) not amount to
misrepresentation or false representation.
(b) For Issuance of the Writ in nature of
Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to
consider the petitioner’s Bid, as the petitioner is
having the requisite qualification as required in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.386 of 2026(2) dt.02-02-2026
3/5
tender document and having the required annual
turnover as demanded in Clause 4.4A of the
CMBD and even Turn Over mentioned in Annual
Return is higher than the mount in which TDS had
been deducted and TDS Certificate i.e. 26AS had
been issued, will not reduced the Turn Over of the
Financial Year declared and tax paid by petitioner
before Income Tax Authority.
(c) For restraining the respondent authorities from
the Opening of Financial Bid of Tender Package
No.-MMGSY (AWSESH-SC) -Betia-891, Tender ID
– 2025 – RWD- 145422-1, till the disposal of the
present writ application ,as the petitioner having
good ground for consideration and to get qualified
in the Technical Bid.
(d) For issuance of any other relief or reliefs as
Your Lordship may deem fit.”
2. Under the impugned order dated 16.12.2025 itself,
liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a complaint in the
event he was aggrieved by the said order, which is reproduced
below:
Patna High Court CWJC No.386 of 2026(2) dt.02-02-2026
4/5
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that a complaint was filed on 22.12.2025, which is pending till
date. A copy of the complaint has been produced in course of
proceedings and is marked as ‘X’ and shall form part of the
record.
4. Considering the fact that the said complaint is still
Patna High Court CWJC No.386 of 2026(2) dt.02-02-2026
5/5
pending before respondent No. 5, respondent No. 5 is directed
to dispose of the said complaint within a period of fifteen days
from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order,
after granting due opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders.
5. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application
stands disposed of.
6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(Sudhir Singh, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J.)
Gaurav Kumar,
Ibrar/-
U
Checking your session…