JUDGMENT :

SUDHIR SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The following reliefs have been sought in the present writ application:

"(i) To issue an appropriate writ, order, direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the revised technical bid decision dated 13.01.2026 published through memo no. 38 dated 13.01.2026 in relation to NIT No. RRSMP-11/2025- 26 of the Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, to the extent that the respondent no. 8 has been once again, declared as technically qualified for package no.RRSMP/25-26 Madhepura / 04 (Annexure-P/10, Pg. 82).

(ii) To issue an appropriate writ, order, direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the revised technical bid decision of the Committee headed by the Engineer-in-Chief- cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary, Rural Works Department, dated 02.01.2026 published through memo no. 33 dated 12.01.2026 in relation to NIT No. RRSMP-11/2025-26 (Package no. Madhepura/05) of the Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, to the extent that the respondent no. 8 has been once again, declared as technically qualified (Annexure-P/9, P.78).

(iii) To issue an appropriate writ, order, direction in the nature of certiorari for the consequential relief of quashing the revised technical bid decision dated 25.11.2025 published through memo no. 3997 dated 28.11.2025 in relation to NIT No. RRSMP. 11/2025-26 of the Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, to the extent that the respondent no. 8 has been once again, declared as technically qualified for package no. RRSMP/25-26 Madhepura/04 (Annexure-P/4, Pg:55).

(iv) To issue an appropriate writ, order, direction in the nature of certiorari for the consequential relief of quashing the technical bid decision dated 08.09.2025 published through memo no. 3337 dated 09.09.2025 in relation to NIT No. RRSMP-11/2025-26 of the Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, to the extent that the respondent no. 8 has been declared as technically qualified for package no. RRSMP/25-26 Madhepura / 04 (Annexure-P/2, Pg. 50)."

3. The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner had participated in a tender process pursuant to Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) bearing no. RRSMP-11/2025-26 dated 26.07.2025 issued by the Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar. The petitioner submitted his bid for Package No. Madhepura/04 and was declared technically qualified along with other bidders, including the private respondent, M/s R.K. Construction, vide decision dated 08.09.2025. However, the petitioner submitted an objection dated 16.09.2025, against the technical qualification of the private respondent, alleging that the private respondent did not fulfil the mandatory criteria under Clause 4.4A(a) of CMBD. The respondent department considered the objection and passed an order dated 28.11.2025, whereby the private respondent had again been declared technically qualified. Another objection was submitted by the petitioner vide letter dated 01.12.2025, challenging the technical qualification of the private respondent on the ground of non-conformity to Clause 4.4A(a) of CMBD.

4. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner approached this court, and in CWJC No. 19993 of 2025, the respondent authorities were directed to consider the representation of the petitioner. The respondent department passed a reasoned order dated 12.01.2026, affirming its earlier orders, and a revised technical bid decision has been taken vide order dated 13.01.2026 whereby the technical qualification of the private respondent has been upheld.

5. Vide order dated 28.01.2026, notice was issued to respondent no. 8. In pursuance thereof, Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, learned counsel, has entered appearance on behalf of respondent no. 8 by filing Vakalatnama on 18.02.2026, which is taken on record. However, till date, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 8.

6. Vide order dated 28.01.2026, this Court had observed as under:

“3. It is not in dispute that