The State Of Bihar and Ors vs Kamakshi Minakshi Construction Private Limited and Anr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1630 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4486 of 2017
CNR No. BRHC010039402018
======================================================
1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Rural Works Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
4. The Chief Engineer-3, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
5. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Circle,
Motihari
6. The Tender Committee through its Member and Nodal Officer, Rural Works
Department, Government of BI
7. The Engineer-in-Chief-Cum- Tender Committee, Rural Works Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Kamakshi Minakshi Construction Private Limited, having its Registered
Office at Flat no. 03, Pocket Son of Sri R.B. Bharti, resident of C-68, Section-
49, Police Station-49 Sector, District-Noida, Uttar Pradesh and Presently
Residing at Flat no. 401, Hari Govind Apartment, Exhibition Road, Police
Station-Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna, Bihar
2. M/s Laxman Kumar through its proprietor, namely , Laxman Kumar Prasad
aged about 44 years, son of Sri Harihar Sah, R/o Mohalla – Ashiana Nagar,
District-Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pratik Kumar Sinha, AC To GA- 5
Mr. Saurav Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Ranjan, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashish Kumar Lal, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA)
Date : 28-10-2026
The present intra court appeal has been preferred against
the judgment dated 18.05.2018 passed by learned Single Judge

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1630 of 2018 dt.28-10-2026
2/9
in C.W.J.C. No. 4486 of 2017 whereby the appellants have been
directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the writ petitioner for
arbitrarily ousting him from the tender work.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal is that
pursuant to NIT No. RWD / NABARD / SBD / 11 / E- Tender /
2015-16, the respondent / writ petitioner participated in the
tender process along with other bidders. The respondent-writ
petitioner along with four other bidders was found eligible by
the Tender Committee in its meeting held on 30.01.2017. Upon
opening of the financial bid on 03.02.2017 the respondent-writ
petitioner was declared as L-1. Subsequently, on the basis of a
complaint made by a Member of the Legislative Assembly
(MLA) an enquiry was conducted. On consideration of the
alleged enquiry report the Tender Committee came to the
conclusion that L-1 & L-2 bidders had not complied with Clause
4.5B(b) of the Standard Bidding Document inasmuch as the
stamp paper on which the affidavit had been executed had not
been issued in the name of the person making the affidavit.
Consequently, both L-1 & L-2 bidders were declared ineligible.
The tender process was cancelled and a fresh tender was
directed to be issued.
3. The respondent-writ petitioner approached this Court by

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1630 of 2018 dt.28-10-2026
3/9
filing writ petition challenging its exclusion from the first tender
process. During pendency of the writ petition fresh tender
process started and the respondent no. -2 was declared L-1 and
work was awarded in his favour. By order dated 12.04.2017 the
writ petitioner was granted liberty to participate in the fresh
tender subject to final outcome of the writ petition.
4. The writ petition filed by the respondent bearing
C.W.J.C. No. 4486 of 2017 was disposed of by order dated
10.08.2017 holding that previous proceeding suffers from
illegality and ground of rejection of technical bid of the writ
petitioner was not sustainable at all. Accordingly, the learned
Single Judge directed that second tender will not be taken into
consideration and the concerned authority shall issue a fresh
tender and the writ petitioner, if so advised, may participate in
the fresh tender.
5. The respondent no. 2 in the present L.P.A. namely, M/s
Laxman Kumar, who was awarded tender in the second tender
process challenged the order dated 10.08.2017 passed in
C.W.J.C. No. 4486 of 2017 in L.P.A. No. 1419 of 2017. The
L.P.A. was disposed of on 20.11.2017 and order of learned
Single Judge dated 10.08.2017 was quashed and the matter was
remanded back for fresh re-consideration.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1630 of 2018 dt.28-10-2026
4/9
6. The respondent-writ petitioner had challenged its
exclusion from the original / first tender process and ultimately
succeeded to the extent that the ground on which its technical
bid was rejected was found to be unsustainable however, by the
time the matter came to be considered for a consequential relief,
the tender process had undergone substantial changes and the
work had been allotted to the subsequent tenderer i.e.
respondent no. 2.
7. The learned Single Judge though arriving at the
conclusion that the respondent no. 1 / writ petitioner was
arbitrarily ousted from the first tender process taking note of the
subsequent development, the position of the work and the fact
that work has already been completed to a substantial extent of
80% did not direct restoration of the work in favour of the
respondent - writ petitioner but while moulding the relief the
learned Single Judge directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.
5,00,000/- to the writ petitioner-respondent no. 1.
8. Mr. Pratik Kumar Sinha, learned A.C. to G.A. No. 5
appearing for the appellants submits that learned Single Judge
failed to appreciate that no concluded contract had come into
existence in favour of the respondent – writ petitioner merely on
its being declared L-1 could not have treated the petitioner as

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1630 of 2018 dt.28-10-2026
5/9
have suffered a compensable loss. It is submitted that the
petitioner had no vested right to claim award of work and
therefore the direction to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation
has no legal or factual basis.
9. The petitioner had been granted an opportunity to
participate in the fresh tender but it chose not to participate.
Having failed to avail the said opportunity, the petitioner could
not subsequently claim a monetary benefit on the basis that it
had been deprived of the work.
10. Learned counsel submits that subsequent tender was
validly awarded to the respondent no. 2 who was declared as
L-1 and after agreement the work was executed by the
respondent no. 2. The learned Single Judge having himself
found that disturbing the work would not be in public interest
could not at the same time have imposed a financial liability
upon the State without determining any actual loss suffered by
the writ petitioner.
11. In a proceeding under Article 226 there was neither
any pleading nor any evidence regarding expenditure incurred
by the writ petitioner, mobilisation of men or machinery, loss of
profit, loss of business or any other pecuniary loss. The mere
fact that petitioner had been declared L-1 could not furnish a

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1630 of 2018 dt.28-10-2026
6/9
basis for awarding compensation particularly when the
petitioner never obtained the work order and the work was
never started. Lastly, it has been submitted that the principles
governing award of compensation in exercise of writ
jurisdiction requires the Court to examine the nature of the right
violated and the material establishing the consequential loss. In
the present case even assuming that the ground for rejection of
the technical bid was unsustainable, that finding could not by
itself create a right to monetary compensation in absence of any
concluded contract or proof of actual loss. Reliance has been
placed upon the judgment of Rabindra Nath Ghosal v.
University of Calcutta, (2002) 7 SCC 478, Sube Singh v. State
of Haryana, (2006)3 SCC 178, W.B. SEB v. Dilip Kumar Ray,
(2007) 14 SCC 568 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v.
Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association, (2011) 14 SCC 481.
12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
gone through the material on record.
13. The respondent - writ petitioner was found eligible by
the Tender Committee in the technical bid and upon opening of
the financial bids he was declared L-1. Subsequently, on the
intervention of an MLA the writ petitioner - respondent was
declared ineligible on the ground that the stamp paper on which

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1630 of 2018 dt.28-10-2026
7/9
the affidavit had been sworn had not been purchased in the
name of the person making the affidavit. The said ground had no
basis in the tender conditions. More importantly when the Court
specifically enquired from the State authority as to whether
there was any such condition in the NIT, learned counsel
appearing for the State fairly submitted that there was none. In
absence of such a stipulation in the NIT, the respondent -writ
petitioner could not have been declared ineligible on such trivial
ground. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that
ouster of the writ petitioner- respondent from the tender process
was arbitrary. Learned Single Judge was therefore justified in
holding that rejection of the technical bid was unsustainable.
The subsequent re-tender also does not alter the position.
14. The writ petition challenging the rejection of the
respondent-writ petitioner’s bid was already pending when the
work was awarded to the respondent no. 2 pursuant to the
subsequent tender. Further this Court had specifically directed
on 12.04.2017 in the writ petition filed by respondent that
participation in the fresh tender and any action pursuant thereto
would remain subject to the result of the writ petition. The
subsequent award therefore could not cure the illegality
committed in rejecting the respondent’s tender in the original /

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1630 of 2018 dt.28-10-2026
8/9
first tender process.
15. The learned Single Judge rightly took the view not to
interfere in the second tender process after taking into account
the progress of the work to the extent of 80%. Interference at
that stage by directing that the work be handed over to the
respondent / writ petitioner would have resulted in disruption of
an ongoing public work. The learned Single Judge therefore did
not direct the award of tender in favour of the writ petitioner at
the advanced stage of the work but has rightly moulded the
relief and directed for payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- as
compensation.
16. The action of the respondent authority was intrinsically
arbitrary and award of compensation in the facts of the case
cannot be said to be illegal. The judgments relied upon by the
appellants are not applicable in the facts of the present case
17. We therefore find that the learned Single Judge has
neither interfered with a concluded contract nor awarded
contractual damages. The relief has been moulded after
balancing the established illegality in the original tender process
at the behest of an MLA against the subsequent progress of
public work. Accordingly, no ground has been made out for
interference with such exercise of discretion by learned Single

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1630 of 2018 dt.28-10-2026
9/9
Judge.
18. In the result, the present L.P.A. is devoid of any merit
and the same is accordingly dismissed.
19. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
Vikash Kumar, J:
I agree.
( Vikash Kumar, J)
praful/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 29-08-2026
Uploading Date 28-10-2026
Transmission Date NA