Pratap And Brothers Enterprises v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5760 of 2024 ====================================================== Pratap and Brothers Enterprises, west of Aggarwal Petrol Pump, Balwatia Pokhara, P.S. - Babhua, District - Kaimur (Babhua) through its proprietor namely Uday Pratap Singh, Male, aged about 57 years, Son of Late Hirday Narayan Singh, Mirchawan, P.S. - Babhua, District- Kaimur (Bhabhua). ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

Principal Secretary Department of Health, Government of Bihar Patna. 3.

District Magistrate-cum-Collector, District - Lakhisarai. 4.

Civil Surgeon, Lakhisarai District - Lakhisarai. 5.

District Health Society, Chairman-cum District Magistrate, District - Lakhisarai.

6.

Civil Surgeon-cum-Secretary, District Health Society, District - Lakhisarai. 7.

M/s Pankaj Kumar through its proprietor namely not known address Vishwanath Nagar, Gali No. 3, Ward No. 23 District - Begusarai, Pin Code851101. 8.

Manglam Planner and Construction Pvt. Dhorani Tola through its partner not known address Dhorani Tola, Mokama ward No. 16, 803302. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. A.B. Sinha, GA-8 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 08-04-2024 The petitioner is before this Court contending that the rates quoted by respondents no. 7 and 8 are very unrealistic.

2. The petitioner's contention is that as per the NIT clause (B), the minimum expenditure for fuel per hour together with the human resources and other expenditure as also the

Patna High Court CWJC No.5760 of 2024 dt.08-04-2024 2/2 service tax had to be specified. The petitioner quoted a higher rate and hence it was not selected. Respondents no. 7 and 8 were selected having quoted a lesser rate. It is the contention of the petitioner that the rates are very unrealistic but, however, it is a tender and if accepted, the respondents no.7 and 8 would be obliged to carry out the work as per the rates quoted and if not, there could be penalty imposed on the said person as per the NIT.

3. It is not for this Court to decide as to whether the rates accepted by the authorities are realistic or not under Article 226.

4. The writ petition would stand dismissed.

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) ( Harish Kumar, J) rohit/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 08-04-2024 Transmission Date