IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7297 of 2025 ====================================================== M/s Shivam Construction Ward No.- 09 (Near Shiv Mandir, Azad Nagar), Bhabua, P.O. and P.S.- Bhabua, District- Kaimur, Here being represented through its Proprietor Birendra Prasad, Gender- Male, aged about- 56 years, Son of Rama Shankar Prasad, Resident of Azad Nagar (Bhabua), Ward No.- 09, Bhabua, P.S.- Bhabua, District- Kaimur. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Planning and Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Planning and Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Chief Engineer, Local Area Engineering Organisation, Planning and Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Local Area Engineering Organisation, Planning and Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Executive Engineer, Local Area Engineering Organisation, Works Division, Kaimur, Bhabua. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Akshansh Shanker, Advocate Mr. Kumar Sunil, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prashant Pratap, GP-2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 23-06-2025 We have heard Mr. Akshansh Shanker, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Pratap, learned Advocate for the State. Patna High Court CWJC No.7297 of 2025 dt.23-06-2025 2/3 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the respondents in cancelling the tender in which he had emerged as the sole successful tenderer. 3. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that it was a re-tender and, therefore, even a sole tenderer could have been considered for being chosen as the contractor for the work. 4. A countervailing argument has been advanced by Mr. Prashant Pratap that the earlier tender was cancelled and thereafter, technical sanction along with a revised BOQ was obtained from higher authority. Because of the changes in the BOQ and the technical sanctions, there were changes in the quantities, item-wise, rendering the present tender in which the petitioner had emerged as a sole successful tenderer, a fresh tender. 5. Precisely, for this reason, the respondents chose not to enter into the contract with the petitioner. 6. Considering this aspect of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the respondents in cancelling the tender where only the petitioner emerged as the successful tenderer. Patna High Court CWJC No.7297 of 2025 dt.23-06-2025 3/3 7. The petition is dismissed. sujit/avinash (Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ) (Partha Sarthy, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 24.06.2025 Transmission Date