IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1530 of 2026 ======================================================

PSR Enterprises under the proprietorship of Ashok Prasad Pankaj @ Ashok Prasad, aged about 66 year (M), S/o Late Ramlagan Prasad, R/o Birpur, Main Road, near Cinema Hall, Thana-Birpur, District-Supaul.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Secretary Town Development and House Department, Bihar, Patna.

2. The Secretary Town Development and House Department, Bihar, Patna.

3. The Chief Engineer, Water Supply Drainage and Sevarage North Bhar, Sub Division, Bihar, Patna.

4. Md. Rajjan Shamim, The Superintendent Engineer, Town Development Anchal-Kosi, Saharsa.

5. Executive Engineer, Town Development Sub Division-Madhepura, Supaul, Madhepura.

6. The Town Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat Virrpur, Supaul.

... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Sweta Priya, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.K. Verma AAG-3 Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, AC to AAG-3 ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)

2 12-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ application has been filed for the following reliefs:

“That this writ application is being filed for Issuance of appropriate writ for quashing the letter dated 25.9.2025 issued by the respondent authority whereby the NIT no.3/26-26 has been cancelled with a direction to proceed further and also for quashing the consequential re-tender notice dt. 1.12.25 NIT No.9/25-26 issued by the respondent authority.

And For issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to proceed with the earlier tender process from the stage prior to the illegal cancellation and to Restrain the respondents from finalizing the re-tender pending disposal of the writ petition.

And Further also for any other other relief(s)

as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent authority issued a Notice Inviting Tender (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NIT’) No. 3/25-26 for construction of drainage system from Hanuman Temple to the house of Ashok Singh in ward no.6 in Birpur Nagar Panchayat, wherein, the petitioner was found technically qualified. Thereafter, the financial bid was opened and, the petitioner emerged as L-1 (lowest bidder) having quoted 0.5% below. Subsequently, the respondent authority invoked “darwarta/negotiation clause” and called the petitioner for negotiation. It was alleged that, under the guise of negotiation, the petitioner was pressurised to enhance the quoted rate from 0.5% to 16.5%. Despite being under no legal obligation, the petitioner, voluntarily agreed to enhance the quoted rate from 0.5% to 1%. The respondent authority, however, refused to consider the said offer and decided that if the petitioner was not willing to work at the rate of 16.5%, a fresh tender process would be initiated. Thereafter, the respondent authority proceeded to cancel the first tender and issued a fresh tender for the same work. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondent authority, the petitioner has preferred the present writ application before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that cancellation of the tender and issuance of a fresh re-tender after disclosure of financial bids is illegal. It was further submitted that petitioner agreed to enhance the rate from 0.5% to 1%, but respondent authority refused to consider the said offer and decided that if the petitioner is not ready to work at the rate of 16.5% then fresh process may be initiated. Such action of respondent authority is liable to be set aside on the ground of unreasonableness, because the petitioner was found fully technically qualified.

5. Learned counsels for the responden