IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15701 of 2025 ====================================================== M/s RITE Water Solutions (India) Ltd. a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, having its registered office at K-60, MIDC Industrial Area, Hingna Road, Nagpur, Maharashtra 440016, through its Authorized Representative Shashi Kant Jha, Male, aged about 46 years, son of Binay Kumar Jha, Resident of B/2372/2, Site-5, Sector-2, HEC Colony, P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand). ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Chief Engineer, South Bihar, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Engineer in Chief, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Regional Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Purnea Region, Purnea-854301. 6. The Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Araria-854311 (Bihar). ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Saket Tiwary, Adv. Mr. Murari Kumar, Adv. Mr. Tarun, Adv. Mr. Animesh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Arif Imam, Adv. For the State : Mr. Advocate General, APP Mr. Rahul Kumar, AC to Ld. A.G. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GIRIJISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 4 19-08-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. The present Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief:- Patna High Court CWJC No.15701 of 2025(4) dt.19-08-2026 2/8 “(i)…..for setting aside the order No. 187 dated 13.09.2025, (Annexure-P/1) issued by the Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Araria, whereby the Tender Agreements No. SBD No. 04 of 2025-26 dated 21.08.2025 has been terminated/cancelled. (ii) For setting aside the decision taken in the proceedings of meeting of Departmental Tender Committee held on 12.09.2025 under the chairmanship of respondent No.2 and to set aside the alleged enquiry report dated 08.09.2025 relied upon by the Departmental Tender Committee. (iii) For directing the Respondents to honor the agreement dated 21.08.2025 executed between the Executive Engineer, P.H. Division, Araria and M/s Rite Water Solutions (India), Pvt. Ltd. in terms of the Agreement No. SBD No. 04/2025-26 and to allow the petitioner to proceed with the execution of the said contract in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed upon. (iv) During pendency of this application stay the operation of the impugned orders. (v) For any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner may be deemed entitled to.” 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 15495 of 2025 dated 19.03.2026 under similar circumstances has set aside the impugned orders dated 13.09.2025 and 12.09.2025 (Annexures P/5 series and P/6 Patna High Court CWJC No.15701 of 2025(4) dt.19-08-2026 3/8 series). Learned counsel further submits that the Division Bench has followed the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 while passing the said order. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is also similarly placed and the authorities based on the complaint filed by an unsuccessful bidder, namely, Aman Anand has issued the impugned orders. Learned counsel, therefore, seeks parity with the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWJC 15495 of 2025 dated 19.03.2026. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State fairly submits that the order passed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the above mentioned CWJC is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and prays this Hon’ble Court to pass suitable orders. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 has held as under:- “47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons,Patna High Court CWJC No. 15794 of 2025(4) dt.15-05-2026 4/7 even in Patna High Court CWJC No.15701 of 2025(4) dt.19-08-2026 4/8 administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision- maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable acomponent of a decision- making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based Patna High Court CWJC No.15701 of 2025(4) dt.19-08-2026 5/8 on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or “rubber- stamp reasons” is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision- making Patna High Court CWJC No.15701 of 2025(4) dt.19-08-2026 6/8 not only makes the judges and decision- makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37] .) (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision- making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)] , wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, “adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions”. (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of “due process.” 6. Thereafter, a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 15495 of 2025 dated 19.03.2026 (Avian infrastructure and Energy Pvt Ltd. v. The State of Bihar and Ors.) has held as under:- Patna High Court CWJC No.15701 of 2025(4) dt.19-08-2026 7/8 “13. This Court also finds substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the persons whose bids were allegedly rejected during the tender process have not chosen to assail the same before any forum. It is not the case of the respondents that any of such unsuccessful bidders have questioned the tender process or the award of contract in favour of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the initiation of action solely on the basis of a complaint made by a third party, who neither participated in the tender process nor had any direct grievance arising therefrom, assumes significance. 14. This Court is of the considered view that while the authorities are not precluded from examining complaints, especially in public matters, the same cannot form the sole basis for taking drastic action of cancelling a concluded tender and annulling subsisting agreements, particularly when the persons directly affected by the alleged irregularities have themselves not raised any challenge. Such action, in absence of independent application of mind, cogent reasons and adherence to due process, partakes the character of arbitrariness.” 7. Having regard to the above mentioned facts and circumstances and also duly taking note of the fact that in this particular case also the authorities have issued the impugned orders solely on the basis of a complaint made by an Patna High Court CWJC No.15701 of 2025(4) dt.19-08-2026 8/8 unsuccessful bidder that to without issuing any show-cause notice to the petitioner or calling for an explanation, the impugned order passed by the authority have to be held as illegal, bad, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice and equity. 8. Having regard to the above, the present writ petition stands allowed and the office order dated 13.09.2025 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Respondent No.6 and proceeding of meeting of Departmental Tender Committee dated 12.09.2025 as well as enquiry report dated 08.09.2025 are all accordingly set aside. The petitioner shall be allowed to execute the work in terms of the LOA vide Memo No. 1655 dated 12.08.2025. 9. With the above directions, the present writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated. Aman/- (Girijish Kumar, J) U