IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13329 of 2026

CNR No. BRHC010888642026

======================================================

Rai Raj Construction Pvt. Ltd. having its Corporate Office at 601, 6th floor,

Lav Kush Tower, Exhibition Road, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, District Patna

through its Director Baidya Nath Rai, aged about 54-years, Male, Son of

Mahendra Rai, Resident of 410, Ashiyana Plaza, Budha Marg, P.S. Kotwali,

District Patna, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Road

Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.The Engineer In-Chief, Works Management, Road Construction Department,

Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.The Chief Engineer (South), Road Construction Department, Government of

Bihar, Patna Cum Chairman, Technical Bid Evaluation Committee, Road

Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4.The Executive Engineer, Road Division-Sonepur, District Saran, Bihar.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate

Mr. Shubham Kumar, Advocate

Mr. Ansh Prasad, Advocate

For the Respondent/s: Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Advocate General

Mr. Vijay Chandra Maurya, AAG-2

Mr. Lokesh Kumar, AC to AG

Mr. Rahul Kumar, AC to AG

Mr. G.R. Shahi, AC to AG

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY

CAV JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 15.10.2026

Patna High Court CWJC No.13329 of 2026 dt.15-10-2026

2/22

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with

the following prayers:

“(i) Quashing of the decision of the

Technical Bid Evaluation Committee as

contained in Memo No. 2433 dated

13.08.2026 (Annexure P/2) to the

extent:-

a) Technical bid of the petitioner has

been held to be non-responsive and

thus, disqualified in terms of Clause

1.2.1 (b) of Section 3 of the Model

Bidding Document for the allegation

of failure to execute the Agreement in

connection with the 2-works awarded

to the petitioner under Road

Division, Bihar Sharif and the Bank

Guarantee furnished is not in

accordance with ITB Clause 17 and

Serial 18 of the NIT inasmuch as the

uploaded Bank Guarantee

incorporate guarantee will be a

Clause "this operative when

accompanied with advise (SFMS)

issued from the advising Bank" which

makes it conditional Bank

Guarantee;

b) It has been decided to open the

financial bid of the technically

responsive bidders in case no

objection is received against the

decision of the Technical Bid

Evaluation Committee in terms of

Departmental Order No. 141 read

with Memo No. 5355 dated

28.10.2021; and

c) It has been decided to proceed further

for re-tender only after disposal of

the objection from the competent

level in case any such objection is

received against the decision of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.13329 of 2026 dt.15-10-2026

3/22

Technical Bid Evaluation Committee.

(ii)

Direction upon the Respondents to open

the financial bid of the petitioner in

connection with NIT No. 02/2026-2027

RCD/Road Division Sonepur dated

11.05.2026 Package No. 26 B and

proceed further in accordance with the

tender conditions; and

(iii)

Restraining the Respondents from giving

effect to the decision of the Technical

Bid Evaluation Committee as contained

in Memo No. 2433 dated 13.08.2026

(Annexure P/2) during the pendency of

the present writ application and/or the

without the leave of this Hon'ble

Court.”

2. The facts as noted from the record and highlighted

by Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner are that, the petitioner is a firm registered as Class-1

contractor under the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007

(‘Rules of 2007’ in short) and is engaged in construction work

on behalf of various Government Departments in the State of

Bihar. According to him, a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT)

No.02/2026-2027 RCD/Road Division, Sonepur dated

11.05.2026 was issued by the Respondent No. 4 i.e. the

Executive Engineer Road Division, Sonepur - District, Saran,

Bihar in connection with ordinary maintenance works, initial

rectification works, periodic maintenance work including re-

application of road markings etc. under the Rosera Division of

Patna High Court CWJC No.13329 of 2026 dt.15-10-2026

4/22

Road Construction Department, Bihar. He stated that the present

writ application relates to work advertised under Package No.

26B in the aforesaid NIT. It is his submission that as per the

knowledge of the petitioner, seven bidders participated in the

tender process by submitting their respective bids. For the

purpose of evaluation of the responsiveness of the technical bids

of the respective bidders, the three-member Technical Bid

Evaluation Committee (‘TBEC’ in short) under the

Chairmanship of Respondent No. 3 convened its meeting on 13-

08-2026. The TBEC vide Proceedings Memo No.2433 dated 13-

08-2026 evaluated the technical bids of the respective bidders

and decided to disqualify four bidders including the petitioner

herein and declared three bidders as qualified the technical bid

evaluation. He submitted that as per TBEC Proceedings dated

13-08-2026, the technical bid of the petitioner was found to be

non-responsive in terms of Clause 1.2.1 (b) of Section 3 of the

Model Bidding Document (MBD) for failure on the part the

petitioner to execute the agreement in connection with two

works earlier allotted to the firm under the Road Division, Bihar

Sharif and the Bank Guarantee furnishing was not in terms of

Clause 17 of the ITB read with Clause 18 of the NIT and also

that the petitioner has furnished a conditional Bank Guarantee.

Patna High Court CWJC No.13329 of 2026 dt.15-10-2026

5/22

3. He submitted that a further decision was taken to

open the financial bids of the technically responsive bidders in

case no objection is received against the decision of TBEC and

in the eventuality any objection is received, further action shall

be taken only after the disposal of such objection by the

competent authority.

4. He stated that in so far as the first ground of

rejection is concerned, the same pertains to Letter of Acceptance

(LoA) bearing Nos.1425 and 1426 dated 03.07.2025 issued by

the Executive Engineer Road Division, Bihar Sharif, which

were challenged in this Court, vide CWJC No. 15252 of 2025

(LoA 1425), Rai-Raj Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. State of Bihar

and Others on various grounds and the Coordinate Bench of this

Court vide order dated 09.10.2025 granted status quo in

connection with the said LoA. He submitted that aforesaid

CWJC No. 15252 of 2025 came to be disposed of by a Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.07.2026 by

setting aside the LOA, as contained in letter No. 1425 dated

03.07.2025, with a further direction to the respondents to return

the Bank Guarantee which was furnished as Earnest Money

Deposit within two weeks.

5. Mr. Ranjan, further submitted that CWJC

Patna High Court CWJC No.13329 of 2026 dt.15-10-2026

6/22

No.15269 of 2025 filed by the petitioner was in respect of LoA

No. 1426 of 2025 dated 03.07.2025, which also came to be

disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order

dated 27-07-2026 by setting aside the LOA dated 03-07-2025

with similar directions to the respondents to return the Bank

Guarantee which was furnished by the petitioner as EMD.

6. It was the submission of Mr. Ranjan that the

decision of the respondents to reject the technical bid of the

petitioner and consequential decision vide Memo dated

13.08.2026 is absolutely arbitrary and illegal, dehors the tender

conditions and in express violation of the judicial orders passed

by this Court.

7. It was his submission that Clause 1.2.1 (b) of

Section 3 of the MBD has no application as the respondents had

not brought on record even a single instance of record of poor

performance such as abandoning the work; improper completion

of the contract; inordinate delays in completion; litigation

history or financial failures etc. in connection with any work

contracted with the petitioner.

8. He stated that the disqualification under Clause

1.2.1 (b) of Section 3 of the MBD could be invoked only after

agreement has been executed and one or more of the several

Patna High Court CWJC No.13329 of 2026 dt.15-10-2026

7/22

exigencies like abandonment of work, failure to complete the

work properly, inordinate delay, litigation history or financial

failure occurs. He also submitted that Clause 1.2.1 (b) of

Section 3 of the MBD could be invoked only when the

agreement has been executed earlier and there is failure on

behalf of the bidder and not at stage before the execution of the

agreement. He submitted that the reference to the failure of the

petitioner to execute the agreement in connection with the two

works awarded under Bihar Sharif Road Division is also

misconceived, in as much, as both the LOAs being 1425 and

1426 dated 03.07.2026 were initially stayed by the Co-ordinate

Bench of this court and finally both the LOAs were quashed by

this Court and as such, there was no occasion for the

respondents to disqualify the petitioner on the ground of failure

to execute the agreement pursuant to two LOAs as referred to

above.

9. In effect, it was his submission that the decision

dated 13.08.2026 is not only in violation of the above Clause

but is in express derogation and contempt of the judgment of

this Court. He stated, the grounds mentioned in the impugned

decision travers beyond the stipulation in the LoAs with regard

to consequence of failure to execute the agreement in

Patna High Court CWJC No.13329 of 2026 dt.15-10-2026

8/22

connection with any work awarded to the bidder. It was also his

submission that the impugned decision has overlooked the

consequences of the failure of any bidder to execute the

agreement after the issuance of the agreement, in as much as

according to the bidding document failure can lead only to

cancellation of LoA and forfeiture of the EMD and cannot result

in disqualification of the bidder in subsequent tender process.

10. One of the plea of Mr. Ranjan was that TBEC

cannot take a final decision but can only recommend to the

Departmental Tender Committee (DTC) the technical

responsiveness of the prospective bidders. He also stated that

the ground that the Bank Guarantee furnished by the petitioner

as EMD is conditional is concerned, the stipulation is that the

Bank Guarantee will be operative when accompanied with the

advice (SFMS) issued from the advising Bank, will not make

the Bank Guarantee conditional. He submitted that nowhere in

the tender document, it has been mentioned that the Bank

Guarantee to be furnished by the bidder as EMD should be

conditional or unconditional nor any format has been

prescribed. That apart, it was also his submission that the

stipulation in the Bank Guarantee, does not in any way violate

the requirements under Clause 17 of the ITB or Serial No.18 of

Patna High Court CWJC No.13329 of 2026 dt.15-10-2026

9/22

the NIT.

11. In any case, it was his submission that the

stipulation that the guarantee will be operative when

accompanied with advice (SFMS) issued from the advising

Bank will not make the Bank Guarantee conditional and the

same has no bearing or connection with the revocation,

forfeiture or any other action relating to the Bank Guarantee by

the department. He also laid stress on the fact that the issuing

Bank vide communication dated 14.08.2026 has also clarified to

Respondent No. 4 that the aforesaid is a standard clause

prescribed as per the banking procedure under the RBI

guidelines and not as a condition for revocation of the Bank

Guarantee.

12. One of the submission of Mr. Ranjan is that the

TBEC headed by the Chief Engineer cannot take any final

decision with regard to the opening of the financial bids or

financial bids evaluation and the decision on all such matters is

to be taken by DTC.

13. He relied upon the decision of the respondents

contained in Memo No. 4676 (E) dated 17.07.2025 to contend

that the decision with regard to the cancellation of the tender or

re-tender of the work is to be taken by the four-DTC headed by

Patna High Court CWJC No.13329 of 2026 dt.15-10-2026

10/22

the Departmental Secretary.

14. He also submitted that in terms of the Memo No.

874 (E) dated 05.02.2026 and Memo No. 1547 dated 26.02.2026

it is actually the DTC headed by the Departmental Secretary

which has to take a final decision on the technical

responsiveness of the bidders.

15. Similar are his submissions with regard to the

decision of the respondents in terms of Memo No. 1535 dated

25.02.2026. He submitted that the decision taken by the TBEC

in the proceedings dated 13.08.2026 is in entirety beyond

jurisdiction and as per Departmental Letter No.3870 as

contained in Annexure P/7 and the prevalent procedure, the

TBEC has got no jurisdiction to take such decision, rather it is

the DTC headed by the Secretary of Department who has to take

the decision.

16. That apart, his submission was also by drawing

our attention to I.A. No. 01 of 2026 to contend that the decision

of the Complaint/Grievance Committee rejecting objections

dated 14.08.2026 of the petitioner vide Memo No.5858(E) dated

24.08.2026 is absolutely arbitrary, non-speaking and beyond

jurisdiction. This according to him is because the said

committee is required to consider the objections and complaint

Patna High Court CWJC No.13329 of 2026 dt.15-10-2026

11/22

filed by the bidders against the decision of the TBEC only and

make recommendations to DTC. Even otherwise, the

Complaint/Grievance Committee consisting of four officers

whereas the impugned decision by the Engineer-in-Chief-cum-

Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary Headquarter/

Engineer-in-Chief (Headquarter) being Special Invited Officer is

absent and instead a Joint Secretary, Road Construction

Department had participated as member in the proceedings of

the Complaint Committee.

17. The Complaint Committee after considering the

complaint/objection should have referred the matter to the DTC

headed by the Departmental Secretary and it is this DTC which

is the final authority to take a decision with regard to

responsiveness of the technical bid of the respective bidders and

opening of financial bids. In other words, it is his submission

that the Complaint/Grievance Committee in the present case has

itself erroneously assumed the jurisdiction to take a final

decision with regard to the responsiveness of the technical bid

of the respective bidders and to issue directions to open the

financial bids.

18. He submitted that even the TBEC decision dated

13.08.2026 rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner on the

Patna High Court CWJC No.13329 of 2026 dt.15-10-2026

12/22

ground that the Bank Guarantee submitted/uploaded by the

petitioner as a Bid Security/EMD is a conditional Bank

Guarantee as against the requirement of the same being

unconditional, whereas the ground on which the

Complaint/Grievance Committee has taken the impugned

decision is a fresh ground, that the petitioner has not submitted

along with the Bank Guarantee the relevant advise (SFMS), is at

variance with the decision of the TBEC.

19. Further, according to him, a decision has been

taken by the Complaint/Grievance Committee oblivious of the

Letter dated 14.08.2026 issued by the Bank clarifying that the

bid security is not a conditional guarantee but an unconditional

one. He seeks the reliefs as prayed for in the petition. He relied

on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maha

Mineral Mining and Benefication Pvt. Ltd. vs. Madhya

Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd. & Anr. CA arising out of

SLP(C) 1940/2025 and Shanti Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. The

State of Odisha and Ors. CA arising out of SLP(C) 5829/2023

in support of his submissions.

20. On the other hand, Mr. S. D. Sanjay, learned

Advocate General appearing for the respondents would contend

that the petition filed by the petitioner is infructuous, in as much

Patna High Court CWJC No.13329 of 2026 dt.15-10-2026

13/22

as the financial bids have been opened, the successful bidder has

been identified. He submitted that pursuant to NIT dated 11-05-

2026, the petitioner along with 6 bidders had participated in the

tender. The financial bids of the qualified bidders were opened

and the lowest bidder has been identified for the award of the

tender. He submitted that the bid evaluation process involves the

process from the opening of the technical bid and evaluation by

the TBEC. The technical bid is opened from the Online Portal

after downloading the documents uploaded by the bidder. The

TBEC takes into account only documents which are uploaded

on the EPROC Portal of the Government of Bihar. Upon

examination of the technical bid, the TBEC records a decision

declaring each of the bid to be either technically responsive or

non-responsive along with reasons for its decision.

21. If any person participating in the bid is aggrieved

by the decision of the TBEC, they are entitled to raise objection

within two days of the opening of the bids. All objections

received by the TBEC along with its decision are forwarded to

the Complaint/Grievance Committee constituted vide a

Departmental Notification issued from time to time and in the

instant case, it was issued by Letter No.2217 (E) dated

01.04.2026, Letter No. 2360 (E) dated 09.04.2026 and Letter

Patna High Court CWJC No.13329 of 2026 dt.15-10-2026

14/22

No.5625 (E) dated 17.08.2026. Thereafter, the

Complaint/Grievance Committee had agreed with the

recommendation of the TBEC and thereby rejected the

objections of the petitioner against the decision of the TBEC to

declare the bid of the petitioner non-responsive.

22. He stated that the reasons stated for declaring the

bid as non-responsive are (1) Bid Security Bank Guarantee

mentions that the Bank Guarantee will be operative when

accompanied with advice (SFMS) issued from the advising

Bank but the same advice SFMS was not uploaded on the

EPROC portal. In absence of the advice, SFMS, the Bank

Guarantee was conditional which was contrary to the expressive

bid terms contained in the Clause. The form of the security bid

was provided in the Section 4B of the NBD. The other bidders

have submitted, the Bank Guarantees in the same manner and

without any condition. On the basis of the recommendation in

the meeting, a final decision is recorded by the

Complaint/Grievance Committee which in the instant case has

rejected the objections dated 14.08.2026 of the petitioner.

Thereafter, the financial bids were opened.

23. He contended that it is a strange coincidence that

in the last three bids submitted by the petitioner, technical

Patna High Court CWJC No.13329 of 2026 dt.15-10-2026

15/22

lacuna have been found to be left on the basis of which the

petitioner has filed objections and litigated the matter before this

Court. It is also rather a strange coincidence that every time the

financial bid of the petitioner is substantially lower than the

Department’s estimate. The Final Order dated 27.07.2026 in

CWJC No. 15252 of 2025 is in the process of being challenged

and objections relating to abandoning the work by the petitioner

is also justified in light of the fact that although on technical

ground the petitioner wanted to resile out of its obligation under

the bid, but the intent, purpose and conduct of the petitioner

cannot be missed.

24. He stated that the averments made in I.A No. 01

of 2026 are concerned, the same are beyond the averments made

in the writ petition and as such these averments need not be

looked into as no opportunity to revert was given by the

respondents. Even otherwise, no rejoinder to the counter

affidavit has been filed. Hence, he seeks the dismissal of the bid

petition.

ANALYSIS

25. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the record, the issue which arises for consideration

is whether the respondents are justified to treat the technical bid

Patna High Court CWJC No.13329 of 2026 dt.15-10-2026

16/22

of the petitioner as non-responsive.

26. The grounds on which bid of the petitioner was

treated as non-responsive are (1) failure to execute the

agreement in connection with two works awarded to the

petitioner under Road Division, Bihar Sharif and (2) the Bank

Guarantee executed is not in accordance with 17B Clause 17

and Serial 18 of the NIT, in as much as the uploaded Bank

Guarantee will be operative when accompanied with advice

(SFMS) issued from the advising Bank which makes it

conditional Bank Guarantee.

27. In so far as (1) above is concerned, Mr. Ranjan

has stated that LOA Nos. 1425 and 1426 have been set aside by

the Court, as such, there was no occasion to execute the

agreements which can be a ground to declare the technical bid

as non-responsive. His Submission was also the Clause 1.2.1 (b)

of Section 3 of MBD is not applicable as the respondents have

not brought on record even a single instance of poor

performance and also the Clause can be invoked only when an

agreement has been executed earlier and there is a failure on the

part of the bidder to execute the work; failure to execute any

agreement can lead to forfeiture of the earnest money and

cancellation of the agreement.

Patna High Court CWJC No.13329 of 2026 dt.15-10-2026

17/22

28. Whereas, the case of the respondents is that in

the last three bids submitted by the petitioner, technical lacunas

have been found, in as much as every time the financial bids of

the petitioner were substantially lower than the departmental

estimate i.e. submitting lower bids and then finding ways to stall

the tender process.

29. It is a conceded position that the Courts have set

aside the LoAs No. 1425 and 1426. The same was on the ground

that the respondents have not followed Clauses 27.2 and 27.4 of

the bid opening and evaluation provisions. So in that sense, the

agreements could not have been executed as the LoAs were set

aside. Mr. Ranjan is right in stating that the ground that there is

a failure on the part of the petitioner to execute the agreement in

connection with the two works shall not be available to the

respondents to treat the technical bid as non-responsive. Having

said that in so far as the ground (2) is concerned that the Bank

Guarantee was conditional has to be seen from the context of

the format of the Bank Guarantee provided in the NIT. The same

reads as under:-

“BANK GUARANTEE FOR ADVANCE PAYMENT

To:

____________________________________________ [name of Employer]

____________________________________________ [address of Employer]

____________________________________________ [name of Contract]

Gentlemen:

In accordance with the provisions of the General Conditions/ Particular Conditions,

Clause 45 (“Advance Payment”) of the above-mentioned Contract,

____________________________________________ [name and address of

Contractor] (hereinafter called “the Contractor”) shall deposit with

Patna High Court CWJC No.13329 of 2026 dt.15-10-2026

18/22

____________________________________________ [name of Employer] an unconditional

Bank Guarantee to guarantee his proper and faithful performance under the

said Clause of the Contract in an amount of ₹____________ [amount of

guarantee]¹ ______________________________ [in words].

We, the ____________________________________ [bank], as instructed by the Contractor,

agree

unconditionally and irrevocably to guarantee as primary obligator and not as Surety merely,

the payment to ____________________________________ [name of Employer] on his first

demand without whatsoever right of objection on our part and without his first claim to the

Contractor, in the amount not exceeding ₹________________ [amount of guarantee]¹

____________________________________________ [in words].

We further agree that no change or addition to or other modification of the terms of the

Contract or of Works to be performed there under or of any of the Contract documents

which may be made between ____________________________________ [name

of Employer] and the Contractor, shall in any way release us from any liability under this

guarantee, and we hereby waive notice of any such change, addition or modification.

This guarantee shall remain valid and in full effect from the date of the advance payment

under the Contract until ____________________________________ [name of

Employer] receives full repayment of the same amount from the Contractor.

Yours truly,

Signature and Seal: ____________________________________

Name of Bank: ________________________________________

Address: _____________________________________________

Date: ________________________________________________

¹ An amount shall be inserted by the bank representing the amount of the Advance Payment, &

denominated

in Indian Rupees

Section 8: Contract Forms”

30. The above clearly depicts that the Bank

Guarantee has to be unconditional. In fact, the stand of the

petitioner in Paragraph No. XIV of the writ petition is that the

tender document does not stipulate that Band Guarantee should

be conditional or unconditional nor any format is prescribed.

The stand is factually incorrect, in view of the format

reproduced above. We must state that Mr. Ranjan during his

submissions conceded that the Bank Guarantee has to be

unconditional. We are clear that the same is conditional because

at Page No. 401 of the Paper Book the Bank Guarantee reads as

under:-

“This Guarantee will be operative when

accompanied with advice (SFMS) issued

from the Advising Bank.”

Patna High Court CWJC No.13329 of 2026 dt.15-10-2026

19/22

31. According to Mr. Ranjan, the above condition

does not make the Bank Guarantee conditional and also the

same shall not have bearing or connection with the revocation,

forfeiture, or any other action in relation to the Bank Guarantee

by the Department. He also stated that the Bank Guarantee is

not conditional has been clarified to the Respondent No.4 by the

Bank that the aforesaid is a standard clause prescribed as per

banking procedure under RBI Guidelines and not as a

revocation, forfeiture or any other action.

32. The submissions of Mr. Ranjan are not

appealing. This we say so, as the above condition makes the

Bank Guarantee operative only when accompanied with an

advice (SFMS) and in that sense the Bank Guarantee was

conditional. Such a stipulation is at variance with the format

given in the bid document which we have reproduced above.

33. In fact, Mr. Sanjay has by drawing our attention

to the counter affidavit contended that in the absence of advice

SFMS the Bank Guarantee becomes conditional is appealing

because without the advice the Guarantee will not be

honoured/operative. So it follows looking from any angle the

Bank Guarantee was conditional.

34. The reliance placed by Mr. Ranjan on the letter

Patna High Court CWJC No.13329 of 2026 dt.15-10-2026

20/22

of the Bank dated 14-08-2026 that it is a standard clause and has

no bearing or connection with revocation, forfeiture or any

action relating to Bank Guarantee by the Department, does not

answer the ground on which the respondents treated the

technical bid non-responsive. Suffice it to state the said Bank

Guarantee is conditional in the absence of any advice (SFMS).

35. The further submission of Mr. Sanjay that the

other bidders have submitted the Bank Guarantee in the

prescribed format without precondition would also justify the

decision of TBEC and Complaint/Grievance Committee in

treating the technical bid as non-responsive, is justified.

36. One of the submission of Mr. Ranjan is also that

TBEC headed by the Chief Engineer cannot take a final decision

with regard to opening of the financial bids or financial bid

evaluation. Suffice it to state that TBEC has only observed

about the opening of the financial bids. It does not say TBEC

shall open it. There is no dispute that the financial bids were

opened by the Departmental Tender Committee (DTC). Hence,

this plea is not appealing and is rejected. The plea that in terms

of Memo dated 05.02.2026 and the Memo dated 26.02.2026, it

is the DTC headed by the Secretary which has to take final

decision on the technical bids is concerned the same is

Patna High Court CWJC No.13329 of 2026 dt.15-10-2026

21/22

unmerited. The very nomenclature of TBEC, depict it is the

technical bid evaluation Committee; surely it evalute the

technical bids whether it is responsive or non-responsive. So to

that extent, the decision is binding. In any case, the petitioner is

estopped for contending so, for the reason it did submit its

objections to the Complaint/Grievance Committee. In that sense

it accepted the jurisdiction of the TBEC against whose decision

filed objections to the Complaint/Grievance Committee which

was constituted vide a Departmental Notifications issued time to

time as stated in the counter affidavit.

37. So the petitioner having accepted the decision of

the TBEC and having invoked the jurisdiction of

Complaint/Grievance Committee by submitting objections, it

cannot now challenge the very jurisdiction of the TBEC,

declaring its bid as non-responsive, that too on the ground it is

DTC which is competent.

38. In so far as the judgments relied upon by Mr.

Ranjan as noted above are concerned, surely those judgments

are not applicable in the fact situation and in view of our

conclusion above and as such are distinguishable.

39. Even otherwise, in the facts and circumstances

of the present case, the impugned action does not require any

Patna High Court CWJC No.13329 of 2026 dt.15-10-2026

22/22

interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the

absence of any prejudice, nor it is the case of the petitioner that

the impugned action is actuated by mala fide. In view of our

discussion above, we hold the petitioner is not entitled to the

reliefs sought. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed. We

order accordingly. No costs.

40. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

shailendra/-

(V. Kameswar Rao, CJ)

(Partha Sarthy, J) : I agree.

(Partha Sarthy, J)

AFR/NAFR A.F.R

CAV DATE 25.09.2026

Uploading Date 15.10.2026

Transmission Date N/A