IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16155 of 2025 ====================================================== M/s. Mother India Construction Pvt. Ltd. a company incorporated under the Companies act 1916 having its office at Aspura House, Road No.3, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna, Bihar, 800020 through its authorized signatory Raj Kishore, (Male), aged about 49 years, S/o Ram Shankar Singh, Residing of Mohalla- Chanakya Nagar, Kothwa Bagicha, PO and PS- Khagaul, Danapur District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Building Construction, Department, Visheweshraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Building Construction Department, Visheweshraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Departmental Tender Committee, Building Construction Department, Patna. 4. The Engineer-in-Chief (Works Management), Building Construction Department, Visheweshraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 5. The Chief Engineer, Building Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 6. The Technical Bid Evaluation Committee, Office of Chief Engineer, Building Construction Department, Patna. 7. The Superintending Engineer, Patna Building Circle, Patna. 8. The Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Patna West Building Division, Danapur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Sr. Advocate Mr. Samir Kumar, Advocate Mr. Saurabh Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. M.N.H. Khan, SC-1 Ms. Babita Kumari, AC to SC-1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH) 3 10-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Following is the relief sought for in the present writ application:- “(i) For issuing a writ of certiorari or Patna High Court CWJC No.16155 of 2025(3) dt.10-04-2026 2/5 any other appropriate writ quashing/setting aside the order dated 04.09.2025 contained in Memo No. 2337 passed by Respondent No. 6 (The Technical Bid Evaluation Committee, Patna) (Annexure-P/4) whereby and whereunder has Respondent Chief Engineer has passed an order that petitioner’s Bid was found non-responsive on the ground that he has not met with condition laid in clause 4.5A(d) of Standard Bidding Document (SBD) in connection with the work of “Construction of Block-cum-Circle office Building at Bikram, Patna”. (ii) For issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/Direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in financial Bid and award the aforesaid work in favor of the petitioner, if found L1 and issue Letter of Acceptance (LOA) to him. (iii) For passing any such order/orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The order under challenge is dated 04.09.2025, issued vide Memo No. 2337(P). The extract of the said order is as follows:- “fufonkdkj MOTHER INDIA CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD., ADD- ASPURA HOUSE, ROAD NO.03, SANJAY GANDHI NAGAR, KANKARBAGH, PATNA-800026 }kjk ,l0ch0Mh0 dh dafMdk&4.5A(d) ds varxZr ekaxs x;s fo|qr dk;Z dk ykbZlsUl Mutual Affidavit 'ks[kj baVjizkbtst ds lkFk lefiZr ik;k x;kA fdUrq 'ks[kj Patna High Court CWJC No.16155 of 2025(3) dt.10-04-2026 3/5 baVjizkbZtst dk fo|qfrdj.k dk;Z dk vuqHko izek.k&i= fufonk esa ekaxs x;s ₹ 1]11]28]044-00 ds fo:) ₹ 84]54]201-40 lefiZr fd;k x;k gS] tks U;wure vgZrk dks iw.kZ ugha djrk gSA vr% bUgsa rduhdh chM esa "uu&fjLikWfUlo" ik;k x;kA” 4. From perusal of the above referred order, it appears that the technical bid of the petitioner was turned down by the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee for the reason that the work experience in respect to the Sub-Contractor was only for an amount of 84,54,201.40/- rather, as per the NIT, it ought to ₹ have been 1,11,28,044.00/-. ₹ 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Clause 4.5(A)(d) of the NIT, which is as follows:- “4.5(A)(d) The contractor or his identified sub-contractor should possess required valid electrical license for executing the building electrification works and should have executed similar electrical works for a minimum amount as indicated in Appendix in any one year.” 6. The ground that has been taken by the Respondents for rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner is that the work experience which was submitted by his Sub-Contractor was not to the tune of 1,11,28,044.00/- but, from the perusal of Clause ₹ 4.5(A)(d), as referred above, the opening line of the Clause itself indicates that the ‘contractor or his identified sub- Patna High Court CWJC No.16155 of 2025(3) dt.10-04-2026 4/5 contractor’. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the work experience, is to be submitted either by the Contractor or by his Sub-Contractor, fulfilling the amount in question as indicated in Appendix to the said Clause. It is further submitted that the petitioner, apart from the Certificate of his Sub- Contractor, had also submitted its own certificate for the work experience to the tune of 299.39649 lakhs, but the same had ₹ not been considered by the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee and, thus, the technical bid of the petitioner has been wrongly rejected. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the representation dated 05.09.2025 submitted before the Respondent authority, to which, no response has been received till date. 8. Learned counsel for the State submits that the certificate showing work experience of 299.39649 lakhs was ₹ not submitted by the petitioner along with the bid documents. 9. From the materials available on record, there is nothing to substantiate the submissions made on behalf of the State. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances as indicated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that Patna High Court CWJC No.16155 of 2025(3) dt.10-04-2026 5/5 Annexure-P/4, i.e., order dated 04.09.2025 issued vide memo No. 2337(P), has been issued arbitrarily. 11. Accordingly, the said order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Respondent authority to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the representation dated 05.09.2025 (Annexure-P/5) and to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, keeping in mind the terms of the Clause 4.5(A)(d) of the NIT within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ application stands disposed of. 13. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Sachin/Maynaz/- (Sudhir Singh, J) (Shailendra Singh, J) U