Titu Badwal v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

Patna High Court CWJC No.12273 of 2013 dt.08-08-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12273 of 2013 =========================================================== Titu Badwal S/o Late Sohan Singh, Resident of Panibagh, P.S. & DistrictKishanganj .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Rural Works Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

2. The Superintending Engineer, District Urban Development Agency (D.U.D.A.), Kishanganj

3. The Executive Engineer, District Urban Development Agency (D.U.D.A.), Kishanganj

4. Kanhaya Lal Mahto, Contractor, Resident of Mohalla- Thakurganj Jilabia More, P.O.- Kishanganj, Distt.- Kishanganj .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ravi Ranjan, AC to SC 22 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 08-08-2018 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the agreement entered into by the respondent authorities with the private respondent no. 4 for Slum Infrastructure Work in Muslim Harijan Tola under "SPAUR" as the contract has been awarded without the financial bid having been opened.

2. None appears on behalf of the petitioner despite repeated calls.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand, opposes the writ petition with reference to the averments made

Patna High Court CWJC No.12273 of 2013 dt.08-08-2018 in the counter affidavit, from which it appears that out of the five tenders, four tenders including that of the petitioner were rejected. Accordingly, a list of successful tenderers in the technical bid were informed the reason of rejection and a direction given for opening the financial bid of the respondent no. 4 which was duly opened and he was allotted the work of "SPAUR". The work allotment was thereafter recommended by the tender committee and agreement of contract executed.

4. Having regard to the stand of the respondent-State in the counter affidavit, which has not been controverted by the petitioner as no rejoinder has been filed, this Court finds the writ petition to be devoid of merit, which accordingly stands dismissed. (Vikash Jain, J) Chandran/BT AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 14.08.2018 Transmission Date NA