The court upheld the principle that tenders are to be evaluated based on rules prevailing at the time of issuance, and subsequent amendments do not apply retroactively.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN KUMAR JHA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed claiming the following reliefs :

“i. For quashing the impugned order dated 23.11.2016 passed in the light of Letter no. 3186 (3) dated 09.05.2016 staying the NIT no.-4 of 16-17 dated 08.12.2016 for re-tender and respondents be directed to open the financial bid of the petitioner company and award the tender in the favor of the petitioner company for which the petitioner company is entitled but without any notice/disposal of the petition dated 05.12.2016, the respondent Superintending Engineer, Bihar urban development authority, Urban development & Housing Department, Patna has canceled the tender and directed to Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Motipur to publish for re-tendering of the same work moreover if the work is not awarded to the petitioner company only may be met with loss of business but the state will also met with loss of Govt. exchequer, but under the reason best, the respondents are adamant not to award the work in favor of the petitioner, and direction issued for fresh NIT on much enhanced rate, which is unfortunate, and thus an appropriate order may be passed directing the respondents to award the work in favor of the petitioner, instead of execute the fresh NIT, which may be in the interest of Govt. revenue/public interest, because the work for Rs. 94,83,690/-has been already enhanced and also to fix the responsibility on the respondent concerned for this enhanced cost.

ii. Further for restraining the respondents from finalizing and awarding the re-tender and work order pursuant to impugned fresh NIT issued for construction of above work till disposal of the writ.

iii. For granting any other relief/s for which the petitioner be found entitled in the eye of law.”

3. The short facts, according to the petitioner, are that fourth time NIT No-2 of 2015-16 was issued by the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Motipur, Muzaffarpur for construction of Administrative Building of Nagar Panchayat, Motipur in which the petitioner participated as a bidder and after final evaluation of the technical bid, it was declared qualified. Thereafter, the Superintending Engineer issued letter to Executive Engineer, DUDA, Muzaffarpur for tools & plants verification of the petitioner company. The petitioner had been waiting for opening of the financial bid, but all of sudden, the Superintending Engineer cancelled the tender vide his letter no. 1837 dated 23.11.2016 in the light of letter no.3186 (3) dated 09.05.2016 and directed the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Motipur to re-tender the bid and, accordingly, re-tender was invited vide NIT No. 04/2016-17 on 08.12.2016 for the said work. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision dated 23.11.2016, the petitioner filed the present Writ.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in rejecting the tender solely on the ground that there was a single tenderer after the technical bid. The learned counsel further submitted that even after inviting tender for fourth time, only the petitioner remained in contention as single tenderer. In such a situation, there was no logic in re-tendering the matter. Moreover, even the notification No. 3162 (s) dated 09.05.2016 of the Road Construction Department provides for award of contract to single tenderer. Thus, the learned counsel submitted that even the single tenderer can be awarded the contract and the same has been held by this Court as well. In support of this contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the order dated 21.07.2016 passed by this Court in CWJC No.8869 of 2016 and its analogous cases.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents while justifying the action of the respondents s