Patna High Court
Gangadhar Narayani Construction Pvt. Ltd.versusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The petitioner's technical bid violated Clause 4.5A(b) of the SBD, and the Tender Committee’s disqualification was upheld.
Summary
Gangadhar Narayani Construction Pvt. Ltd. filed a writ petition challenging the disqualification of its technical bid in a public tender for constructing a Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan, alleging that the Tender Committee wrongly rejected its work experience certificate as false. The Tender Committee, relying on discrepancies between two experience certificates and associated bills, held that the certificates were inconsistent and misrepresented the completion date and quantities, thereby violating Clause 4.5A(b) of the Standard Bidding Document (SBD). The petitioner contended that the certificates were genuine and sought quashing of the committee’s decisions and a direction to reconsider. The High Court examined the evidence, found the petitioner unable to explain the contradictions, and concluded that the experience certificates were not valid under the SBD criteria. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Tender Committee’s disqualification and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner’s technical bid, specifically the work experience certificate, contravenes Clause 4.5A(b) of the Standard Bidding Document and justifies disqualification.
- Whether the High Court can interfere with the Tender Committee’s decision on the basis of alleged procedural irregularities.
Subjects
- tender
- technical bid
- disqualification
- experience certificate
- eligibility criteria
- Standard Bidding Document
- public procurement
- writ petition
- false representation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6238 of 2025
======================================================
Gangadhar Narayani Construction Pvt. Ltd. having its Head Office at Sankat
Mochan Nagar, New Police Line, Nawada, Ara, through its Managing
Director, Abhay Kumar Mishra, aged about 59 years, Male, son of Late
Chandrama Mishra, resident of Flat No. G-1, Girja Nandan Enclave, IAS
Colony, Rupaspur, P S Rupaspur, District Patna, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Planning and
Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Engineer in Chief, Planning and Development Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer, Local Area Engineering Organization, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Local Area Engineering Organization, Works
Circle, Patna, Bihar.
5. The Executive Engineer, Local Area Engineering Organization, Works
Division - I, Ara (Bhojpur), Bihar
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jai Vardhan Narayan, Advocate
Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General
Mr. Amish Kumar Jha, JC to AG
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
4 21-01-2026 In the present writ application, the petitioner has
prayed for the following relief(s):
“(i) Quashing of the decision of the Tender
Committee dated 15.01.2025 as contained in
Memo NO. 298 (Annexure 2) by which, the
Technical Bid of the petitioner has been rejected
and held to be non responsive on the grounds
that “the Experience Certificate submitted
along with the Tender Document, in course of
Patna High Court CWJC No.6238 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
2/13
verification has been found to be false and as
such the Bidder does not meet the eligibility
criteria under Clause 4.5 A (b) of the S B D
(ii) Quashing of the subsequent and
consequential decision of the Tender Committee
dated 20.01.2025 as contained in Memo No. 401
dated 21.01.2025 whereby, misinterpreting the
objection filed by the petitioner, the earlier
decision dated 15.01.2025 rejecting the
petitioner’s Technical Bid has been reiterated
although on an absolutely new and different
ground and based on extraneous and materials;
(iii) Direction upon the Respondents to
reconsider the decision of the Tender Committee
dated 20.01.2025 on the basis of the verification
report of the work experience certificate
submitted along with the tender document;
(iv) Direction upon the Respondents to consider
and dispose of by a reasoned and speaking
order, the objections/ representations filed by
the petitioner vide Communication dated
23.01.2025, 24.01.2025 and 01.02.2025
respectively; and
(v) Restraining the Respondents from
proceeding further and finalizing the
Tender6238 process by creating third party right
during the pendency of the present writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.6238 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
3/13
application and/or the without the leave of this
Hon'ble Court.”
2. The brief facts of the case are that a NIT (Notice
Inviting Tender) was published on 27.11.2024 for construction
of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan in the District of Bhojpur. The
petitioner had participated in the said Tender Process, and was
disqualified at the Technical bid Stage. The Tender Committee
had disqualified the technical bid of the petitioner vide its
decision dated 15.01.2025 on the ground that, the work
experience certificate, submitted by the petitioner, was found to
be false and the bidder does not meet the eligibility criteria
under Clause 4.5 A (b) of the S.B.D. (Standard Bidding
Document). In pursuance to the same, the petitioner had
submitted its objection dated 17.01.2025 taking a stand that the
experience certificate submitted by him is correct. The Tender
Committee reiterated its earlier stand, vide its decision dated
20.01.2025. Thereafter, an objection dated 23.01.2025 was
again submitted by the petitioner, and on 28.01.2025 the
respondent authorities again passed an order stating therein that
Patna High Court CWJC No.6238 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
4/13
the genuineness of the work experience certificate submitted by
the petitioner appears to be doubtful. The relevant portion of the
order dated 28.01.2025 is reproduced as under:
“ननिवविददा सनमिनति कदा ननिरर्णयय-
उपयरक्त
र्ण समिमीकदा कक आललोक मिमें वविचदारलोपरदान्ति
ननिवविददा सनमिनति ददारदा पपवि र्ण मिमें नलयक गयक ननिरर्णय कलो
यथदाविति रखदा गयदा। इस ननिवविददा मिमें प्रनतिभदागमी सभमी
०२ (दलो) अदद ननिवविददाददातिदाओओ मिमें सक 01 (एक)
अदद ननिवविददाददातिदा Rohit Kumar Singh कक
तिकनिमीककी बमीड कलो सफल घलोवषिति वकयदा जदातिदा हह
तिथदा 01 (एक) अदद ननिवविददाददातिदा M/s
Gangadhar Narayani Const. Pvt. Ltd. कक
तिकनिमीककी बमीड कलो असफल घलोवषिति वकयदा जदातिदा
हह ।
चपओवक परनिननिर्निंवविददा मिमें दलो ननिवविददाददातिदा मिमें सक (एक)
अदद ननिवविददाददातिदा कक तिकनिमीककी बमीड कलो सफल
वकयदा गयदा ऐसक मिदामिलक मिमें पथ ननिमिदार्णर वविभदाग कक
अनधिसपचनिदा सओ ० -07/ननियमि-03/2016-3162(S)
ददनिदाओक-09.5.2016 मिमें उल्लकखखति प्रदाविधिदानिनों कक
अनिरसदार ननिवविददा कदा ननिष्पदादनि सकमि प्रदानधिकदार सक
एक स्तिर सक उपर कक प्रदानधिकदार ददारदा वकयदा जदानिदा
अपकखकति हह ।”
Patna High Court CWJC No.6238 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
5/13
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
Respondent Nos.3 to 5, wherein the following statements have
been made in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 14 & 15:-
“8. That on 20.01.2025, the Tender Committee
reconvened to evaluate the objections raised by
the bidders. Upon examining the documents
submitted by the Respondent, it was noted that
the petitioner had previously submitted a work
experience certificate for the same project
issued on date 09.04.2024 in a different tender
(Work Division-02 Sonepur Re-NIT:
01E/SBD/2024-2025, Group No: 1). In the
current submission, however, the petitioner
provided a different work experience certificate
for the same project, this time issued on date
26.07.2024. Notably, both certificates state the
actual completion date as 26.02.2024, yet
discrepancies were found in the quantities and
amounts of certain executed items, which is
implausible under any circumstance.
Furthermore, in support of the latest certificate,
the petitioner attached RA Bill-5. However, this
bill indicates a date of measurement as
30.05.2024 and an extended completion date of
31.05.2024 clearly contradicting the earlier
Patna High Court CWJC No.6238 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
6/13
claimed completion date of 26.02.2024.
Additionally, the name of the work mentioned in
RA Bill-5 differs from that stated in the
experience certificate, despite both documents
referencing the same agreement number and
project value, which further adds to the
inconsistencies and raises concerns of
misrepresentation.
9. That Tender Committee, upon consideration
of the above-mentioned points, has upheld its
earlier decision and declared the petitioner
disqualified. This decision is recorded in Memo
No. 401 dated 20.01.2025, which has been
uploaded on the e-proc2 portal.
10. That the petitioner once again raised an
objection on 24.01.2025 regarding the decision
to disqualify them, and submitted a handover
certificate for the same work along with email
verification related to the aforesaid work.
11. That on 28.01.2025, the Tender Committee
reconvened to evaluate the objections raised by
the bidders. Upon reviewing the documents and
evidence submitted by the petitioner, the
Committee found no material justification
explaining how two certificates issued on
different dates but bearing the same actual date
of completion could reflect discrepancies in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6238 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
7/13
quantity and value of work executed.
Consequently, the petitioner was once again
adjudged disqualified based on this evaluation.
The final decision of the Tender Committee is
recorded in Memo No. 579 dated 29.01.2025
and has been uploaded on the e-Proc2 portal,
with no further time granted for clarification, as
no substantive evidence was provided to
warrant reconsideration. The decision remains
unchanged.
14. That the petitioner's claim that deviations
and extra items were included in the latter-
submitted work experience certificate is
untenable. A work can only be considered
complete once all deviations and extra items are
duly sanctioned. Therefore, if the actual
completion date was indeed 26.02.2024, there
should be no variation in quantities beyond that
date, regardless of when the certificate is issued.
It is pertinent to note that in the work certificate
dated 09.04.2024, the recorded payments were:
(i) 26,70,965/- for Electrical Work including
Substation, and (ii) ₹80,501/- for Safety
Equipment. However, in the certificate dated
26.07.2024, the corresponding figures were: (i)
₹26,24,981/-and (ii) 235,984/-, respectively.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6238 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
8/13
Such a reduction in payment amounts between
two certificates-both purporting to represent
completed work as of the same date is
inexplicable and indicates inconsistencies that
undermine the credibility of the petitioner's
claim.
15. That it clearly suggests the petitioner made
a deliberate attempt to use a fabricated
certificate to obtain the tender, thereby
demonstrating non-bona fide intentions. As per
Clause 4.8 of the Standard Bidding Document
(SBD), "Even though the bidder meets the above
qualifying criteria, they are subject to
disqualification if they have made misleading or
false representations in the forms, statements,
and attachments submitted in proof of the
qualification requirements." Furthermore, the
affidavit submitted by the bidders at the time of
tender submission states: "I do hereby certify
that all the statements made in the required
attachments are true and correct, and if found
fake/forged, the undersigned will be liable for
FIR or lawful punishment as well as
blacklisting." In light of these provisions, the
petitioner's claim is not sustainable in the eyes
of law and is clearly in violation of the
guidelines laid down in the SBD.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.6238 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
9/13
4. A rejoinder to the counter affidavit has also been
filed on behalf of the writ petitioner, whereby the petitioner did
not choose to respond to paragraphs 14 & 15 of the counter
affidavit.
5. A very limited question for consideration before us
is that whether the technical bid submitted by the petitioner is in
contravention to the Clause 4.5A(b) of the S.B.D. which is
annexed as ‘Annexure P/1’ to the writ petition. Clause 4.5A(b) to
the Tender Notice is as follows:-
“4.5 To qualify for award of the contract, each
bidder in its name should have in the last five
years as referred to in Appendix :-
(b) Satisfactorily completed as a prime
contractor (or as a nominated subcontractor,
where the subcontract involved execution of all
main items of work described in the bid
document, provided further that all other
qualification criteria are satisfied) at least one
similar work (Building work) of value not less
than amount indicated in Appendix (usually not
less than 25% (twenty five percent) of estimated
value of contract);”
Patna High Court CWJC No.6238 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
10/13
6. It would be pertinent to consider the objections
raised by Tender Committee in their decision dated 28.01.2025,
which is reproduced as under:-
“2. M/s Gangadhar Narayani Const.
Pvt. Ltd. :- यक जल सओ सदाधिनि वविभदाग कक विगर्ण-
1 मिमें ननिबओनधिति सओ विकदक हह , खजनिकदा ननिबओधिनि
सओ ख्यदा-WRD-220420CICO20/20 हह । इनिकक
ददारदा पपवि र्ण मिमें कदायर्ण प्रमिओडल -02, सलोनिपरर कक
परनिननिर्णवविददा सओ 0-01E/SBD/2024-25 कक गपर
सओ ०-01 मिमें समिवपर्णति वकयक गयक एक हही कदायर्ण कक
अनिरभवि प्रमिदार पत्र (ददनिदाओक-09.04.2024 कलो
ननिगर्णति) एविओ इस ननिवविददा मिमें भमी समिवपर्णति same
कदायर्ण कक अनिरभवि प्रमिदार पत्र (ददनिदाओक-
26.07.2024 कलो ननिगर्णति ) मिमें कदायर्ण समिदाखप्ति ककी
विदास्तिवविक नतिनथ 26.02.2024 दरदार्णयदा गयदा हह ।
उक्त दलोनिनों अनिरभवि प्रमिदार पत्र कक अविललोकनि सक
स्पष्ट हलोतिदा हह वक कदायर्ण समिदाखप्ति ककी विदास्तिवविक
नतिनथ 26.02.2024, same हलोनिक कक बदाद भमी
कदायर्ण ककी मिदात्रदा मिमें नभन्न्तिदा हह जलो वक वकसमी भमी
पररखस्थनति मिमें सओ भवि निहहीओ हह तिथदा इनिकक ददारदा
समिवपर्णति स्पष्टहीकरर मिमें सओ लग्नि वकयदा गयदा RA
Patna High Court CWJC No.6238 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
11/13
BILL-5 (चदालप वविपत्र, Final Bill निहहीओ) मिमें कदायर्ण
कदा निदामि हही अलग अओवकति हह तिथदा Date of
Measurement 30.05.2024 एविओ Extended
Date of Completition 31-05-2024 ददखदायदा
गयदा हह जलो वक समिवपर्णति अनिरभवि प्रमिदार पत्र पर
अओवकति Actual Date of Completition Date
26-02-2024 कक बदाद कदा हह जलो वक सओ भवि
निहहीओ हह । अतिय इनिकक ददारदा एक हही कदायर्ण कक
अलग-अलग Data प्रदत्त करनिक ककी विजह सक यक
विदाओनछिति अनिरभवि प्रमिदार पत्र ककी अहर्णत्तदा कलो पपरदा
निहहीओ करतिक हहैं । इस सओ बओधि मिमें परनिय स्पष्टहीकरर
समिवपर्णति कर इनिकक ददारदा उपयरक्त
र्ण वटप्परमीयनों कक
आललोक मिमें कलोई ठलोस तिथ्य समिवपर्णति निहहीओ वकयदा
गयदा खजससक यह सत्यदावपति हलो सकक वक एक हही
कदायर्ण कक दलो अलग -अलग ददनिदाओकनों पर ननिगर्णति
अनिरभवि प्रमिदार-पत्रनों पर कदायर्ण समिदाखप्ति ककी नतिनथ
एक हलोनिक ककी खस्थनति मिमें भमी कदायर्ण करदायक गयक
मिदात्रदाओओ मिमें नभन्नतिदा कहसक प्रदखरर्णति हरई तिथदा RA
BILL-5 (चदालप वविपत्र, Final Bill निहहीओ) मिमें कदायर्ण
कदा निदामि हही अलग अओवकति हलोनिदा तिथदा Actual
Date of Completition Date 26-02-2024
अओवकति हलोनिक कक बदाद भमी Date of
Patna High Court CWJC No.6238 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
12/13
Measurement 30.05.2024 एविओ Extended
Date of Completition 31-05-2024 ददखदायक
जदानिक कलो लककर कलोई सत्यदावपति तिथ्य समिवपर्णति
निहहीओ वकयदा गयदा हह . फलस्विरूप SBD Clause
4.5 A (b) कक आललोक मिमें यक तिकनिमीककी ननिवविददा
ककी अहर्णतिदा कलो पपरदा निहहीओ कर रहक हह ।”
7. Upon perusal of the decision of the Tender
Committee dated 28.01.2025, it is evident that the petitioner has
been unable to provide any material evidence as to how two
different certificates, bearing different dates of completion,
could be procured for the same work. It is further evident from
the entire pleadings and the documents on record that the
petitioner has not explained the circumstances which led to
issuance of two different certificates. Further, in the rejoinder to
the counter-affidavit, petitioner has not been able to dislodge the
specific contention of the respondent-state made in paragraphs
14 and 15 of the counter affidavit. As such, the work experience
certificate submitted by the petitioner cannot be considered to
be valid and correct, and is in contravention to clause 4.5 A (b)
Patna High Court CWJC No.6238 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
13/13
of the S.B.D.
8. Considering the materials on record and the
discussions made above, it becomes clear that the petitioner was
unable to fulfill the eligibility criteria as mentioned in the
S.B.D. (Standard Bidding Document). Therefore, the question,
as referred above is answered in affirmative.
9. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the
decisions of the Tender Committee, by which the petitioner’s
technical bid has been rejected.
10. Accordingly, the present writ application stands
dismissed.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J.)
(Ritesh Kumar, J.)
Gaurav Kumar/-
U
Checking your session…