Sanjay Rajak vs The State of Bihar

Court
Patna High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12715 of 2026
CNR No. BRHC010784102026
======================================================
Sanjay Rajak, S/o Anil Rajak, R/o Sakarwar Tola Ward No. 17, Mokama,
Patna, Bihar- 803302.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and
Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road,
Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department,
Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
3. The Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Mokama, District- Patna.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Urban Development Circle-02, Urban
Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Executive Engineer, Urban Development Division, Patna East, District-
Patna.
6. Shri Ravi Kumar, Superintending Engineer, Urban Development Circle-02,
Urban Development and Housing Department, Patna, Co-Chairman,
Technical Tender Committee.
7. Shri Rana Vidyadhar, Executive Engineer, Urban Development Division,
Patna East, Patna, Member, Technical Tender Committee.
8. Shri Avinash Kumar, Assistant Engineer, Urban Development Circle-02,
Patna, Member, Technical Tender Committee.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranvir Pratap Singh, Advocate
Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Shubham, Advocate
For the State : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Advocate General
Mr. Rahul Kumar, AC to AG
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Anand Gaurav, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 13-10-2026
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with
the following prayer(s):-

Patna High Court CWJC No.12715 of 2026 dt.13-10-2026
2/5
“I. Issuance of an appropriate writ, order or
direction, particularly in the nature of
Certiorari, for quashing the proceedings of
the Technical Tender Committee dated
25.06.2026, communicated vide Letter No.
SE/Urban Development Circle-02/2026-
271-597 dated 25.06.2026, whereby the
petitioner' bid has been declared
technically unsuccessful in respect of
Groups in which the petitioner duly
participated under Tender Invitation
Notice No. 09/2025-26 on the alleged
ground of discrepancy between the
signatures on the original affidavit and the
uploaded affidavit,
II. Issuance of an appropriate writ in the
nature of Mandamus directing the
respondents to restore the petitioner's
technical qualification and consider his
bid strictly in accordance with law.
III. Issuance of an appropriate writ, order or
direction commanding the respondent-
State authorities to conduct an
independent and impartial enquiry into the
arbitrary and illegal manner in which the
petitioner's technical bid was dealt with
under Tender Notice No. 09/2025-26 and,
upon such enquiry, initiate appropriate
departmental and disciplinary proceedings
against the officials found responsible for
acting contrary to the terms and
conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender
and for passing the impugned proceedings
in violation of law.
IV. Restraining the respondent authorities from
proceeding further with the tender process
pursuant to the impugned proceedings
dated 25.06.2026, in so far as it affects the
rights and interests of the petitioner,
during the pendency of the present writ
petition;
V. Any other relief/reliefs as Your Lordships
may think fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”

Patna High Court CWJC No.12715 of 2026 dt.13-10-2026
3/5
2. The case of the petitioner as contended by the
learned counsel is that vide the impugned proceedings dated
25.06.2026, the petitioner who was declared technically
qualified for 23 groups under Short Term Tender Notice No.
09/2025-26 issued by the Nagar Parishad, Mokama for
execution of works under the Nal-Jal Scheme, was subsequently
technically disqualified solely on the ground that the signatures
on the uploaded affidavit did not match the signatures on the
original affidavit.
3. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner had
maintained both the signatures as his own and there is no
question of any forgery, fabrication or impersonation and he
repeatedly requested the respondents to undertake an objective
verification by comparing the specimen signatures or granting
him an opportunity to explain. Despite such requests, the
respondents neither issued a show-cause notice nor supplied the
complaints of rival bidders nor conducted any transparent
verification or afforded any opportunity of hearing.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner do concede that
post the decision, the petitioner was given a hearing but that
would not better the case of the respondents as the decision has
already been taken by the respondents to disqualify the

Patna High Court CWJC No.12715 of 2026 dt.13-10-2026
4/5
petitioner technically.
5. When the matter was listed on 22.09.2026, we had
passed an order; Para-2 thereof reads as under:-
“2. Mr. Amit Shrivastava, learned Senior
counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that he shall take instructions as to
whether the petitioner has retained the
copies of the bid documents which were
scanned and uploaded and if yes he shall
give a copy to Mr. Maurya Vijay Chandra,
learned counsel appearing for the State,
who can compare the same with the bid
documents in the possession of the
respondents.”
6. Thereafter, on 29.09.2026, the respondents
produced the record which we had perused.
7. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates
the submissions as were advanced on earlier occasions.
8. Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned Advocate General would
submit that the petitioner was disqualified only on one ground
that the signatures on the uploaded affidavit did not match the
signatures on the original affidavit. Apart from that, there is no
other aspect which materially affect the tender submitted by the
petitioner. He states that in the given facts, appropriate shall be
that the matter be remanded back to the Technical Bid
Evaluation Committee for reconsideration of the technical bid of
the petitioner.

Patna High Court CWJC No.12715 of 2026 dt.13-10-2026
5/5
9. Noting the submission, to which the learned
counsel for the petitioner is also agreeable, we set aside the
proceedings dated 25.06.2026 [Annexure-P/2] and remand the
matter back to the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee to
consider the technical bid of the petitioner afresh and then
proceed in accordance with law/ in terms of the provisions of
the N.I.T. The aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken within four
weeks from today.
10. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the
writ petition stands disposed of.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.

(V. Kameswar Rao, CJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
tanishka/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 18.10.2026
Transmission Date