IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1301 of 2026 ====================================================== Jitendra Singh, aged about 55 years, Male, Son of Late Chandradeo Singh, resident and Village-Dhanauti Math, P.S.-Dhanauti Math, District-Siwan. ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Chief Engineer-5, Muzaffarpur, Rural Works Department, Bihar. 3. The Technical Secretary, Rural Works Department in the office of Chief Engineer-5, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Circle, Siwan. 5. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department in the office of Chief Engineer-5, Muzaffarpur. 6. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Siwan- 1. 7. Ramayan Prasad Singh, resident of Village-Lohijara, Sidhwalia, District- Gopalganj. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Shrish Anurag, Advocate and Mr. Amar Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Advocate General. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH) 2 05-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The following reliefs have been sought for by the petitioner in the present writ application: “1(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of that part of Patna High Court CWJC No.1301 of 2026(2) dt.05-02-2026 2/6 decision of the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee in its proceeding dated 30-12- 2025 as contained in memo no.3969 dated 30-12-2025 whereby the objection of the petitioner as contained in paragraph 4 relating to no experience of the private respondent has been rejected under the general provision of clause 4.4A (a) of CMBD, without considering clause 4.4A (c) of CMBD. (ii) For necessary direction upon the respondent authorities to reconsider the objection of the petitioner over the eligibility of the private respondent in terms of clause 4.4A (c) of CMBD, which provides that the contractor should have the experience of 25% of the value of similar work and in the present case, the work involves construction of road with bitumen upto the value of Rs. 51,04,650/- but the experience of the private respondent with regard to this work is zero. (iii) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of letter no. 3974 dated 31-12-2025 issued by the Chief Engineer-5, Muzaffarpur, Rural Works Department whereby the work has been allotted to the private respondent and work order has also been issued in favour of the private respondent. (iv) For restraining the private respondent Patna High Court CWJC No.1301 of 2026(2) dt.05-02-2026 3/6 from executing with the work contained in package no. MMGSY (AWSESH-GEN)- Siwan-1-225 against tender notice contained in memo no. 1249 dated 13-06-2025. (v) For any other direction, which your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. It is the case of the petitioner that an objection was filed with respect to respondent no. 7 vide Letter dated 10.12.2025 (Annexure-P/5). In the said objection, the petitioner raised four specific issues against respondent no. 7, which are as follows:- “1. jkek;.k izlkn flag chM la-&624048% budk Credit Facility esa Tender Value vafdr ugha gSA 2- buds QkeZ esa rduhfd baftfu;j ,oa deZpkjh dk;Zjr ugha gS D;ksafd fd bZ-ih-,Q- tkWp djus ij fdlh Hkh O;fDr dk vafdr ugha gSa (Nk;kizfr layXu)A 3. budk o’kZ 2023-24 dk ATO esa dqy izkfIr dh jkf”k 12799491-00 #- vafdr gSA dk;Z ize.My xksikyxat 2 ds n~okjk fuxZr isesUV lfVZfQdsV esa Hkh dqy Hkqxrku dh jkf”k 12799491-00 #- vafdr gS ftlesa vk;dj en esa dqy dVkSfr 255990-00 vafdr gS ysfdu vk;dj fjVZu dh ikofÙk jlhn #- 709627760 fnukad&15-11-2024 esa vk;dj en esa dqy dVkSfr;k 259214-00 #i;k vafdr gSA (Nk;kizfr layXu) 4- bl fufonk ds iFk fuekZ.k dkZ; esa 50 yk[k dk vydrjk ls ihp djus gSA blls bldk vuqHko izek.k&i= ugha gSA Patna High Court CWJC No.1301 of 2026(2) dt.05-02-2026 4/6 buds n~okjk viyksM ATO ,oa djk;k x;k gS flfoy dk;Z 12799491 ls T;knk bl izdkj ATO dh jkf”k esa gsjk&Qsjh dh xbZ gS blls izekf.kr gksrk gS fd CMBD dh dafMdk 4-4B@ ,oa NIT dh dafMdk 7 ds vuqlkj fufonk esa viyksM dh xbZ lkjh dkxtkr lgh ,oa lR; ds fo#n~/k CMBD dh dafMdk 27-2 esa Necessary Document ds fo#n~/k gSA vr% Jheku~ ls fuosnu gS fd jkek;.k izlkn flag dk ;ksX; ls v;ksX; djus dh d`ik dh tk;sA vU;Fkk eSa U;k;ky; ds “kj.k esa tkus ds fy, ok/; gks tkÅWxkA” 4. Pursuant thereto, the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee examined the objections raised by the petitioner and passed a reasoned order dated 30.12.2025 (Annexure-P/6). By the said order, the Committee has addressed all the four issues raised by the petitioner. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows:- rduhdh chM ewY;kadu lfefr dk earO; 1-Ramayana Prasad Singh(624048) ds n~okjk fufonk esa layXu Bank Credit Facility tks iatkc us”kuy cSad] xksikyxat n~okjk fuxZr gS] esa Package no./Work Reference of.kZr gSA vr% ifjokn ds bl fcanq dks vekU; fd;k tkrk gSA 2- buds n~okjk fufonk esa layXu EPF la[;k dh vkWuykbZu tkWp dh xbZ] tks lgh ikbZ xbZA vr% ifjokn ds bl fcanq dks vekU; fd;k tkrk gSA 3- buds n~okjk fufonk esa o’kZ 2023-24 dk ATO esa Patna High Court CWJC No.1301 of 2026(2) dt.05-02-2026 5/6 dqy izkfIr dh jkf”k 12799491-00 #- vafdr gSA lkFk gh dkZ; izeaMy] xksikyxat&2 ds n~okjk fuxZr isesUV lfVZfQdsV esa Hkh dqy Hkqxrku dh jkf”k 12799491-00 #- vafdr gS] tks fd fufonk esa okafNr ATO ,oa ATO ds fo#n~/k flfoy odZ ls Hkqxrku izek.k i= ds vuq#i gSA vr% ifjokn ds bl fcanq dks vekU; fd;k tkrk gSA 4- buds n~okjk fufonk esa le#i dk;Z ds vuqHko izek.k i= gsrq dk;Z izeaMy] xksikyxat&2 vUrxZr ,djkjukek la[;k& (a) 29SBD/2020-21 -Rs 74.56 Lacs. (b) 29SBD/MMGSY/2020-21- Rs. 91.60 Lacs, (c) 65SBD/MMGSY/2021-22- Rs 94-94 Lacs dk layXu fd;k x;k gS] tks lMd fuekZ.k ls lacaf/kr gS ,oa fufonk esa okafNr jkf”k ds vuq#i gSA vr% ifjokn ds bl fcanq dks vekU; fd;k tkrk gSA” 5. Considering the fact that all the four issues raised by the petitioner have been duly examined and answered by the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Technical Bid Committee. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to the said decision, the work order has already been issued in favour of respondent no. 7 vide order dated 31.12.2025 (Annexure-P/7). 6. At this stage, in view of the fact that the order dated 30.12.2025 passed by respondent authority has addressed all the issues raised by petitioner and that the work order has already been issued, we are not inclined to interfere with the said work order or the decision making process leading thereto Patna High Court CWJC No.1301 of 2026(2) dt.05-02-2026 6/6 in exercise of our writ jurisdiction. 7. Accordingly, the present writ application stands disposed of. 8. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. U.K./- (Sudhir Singh, J) (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) U T