JUDGMENT B. P. Singh, J. We have heard counsel for the parties. A counter-affidavit has been riled on behalf of respondent no.2. With the consent of parties this writ application is being disposed of at this stage by this order. 2. The petitioner, who is registered as Class I-A contractor with the Road Construction Department of the Government of Bihar, has prayed for a writ quashing the order dated 10-9-1992 (Annexure-2) issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Patna, sub-dividing the works of groups 1, 2, 5 and 6 into 12 groups, and the tender notice dated 15-9-1992 (Annexure-3A) issued by respondent no.3 inviting tenders for the execution of works pursuant to Annexure-2. He has also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to finalise the tenders which were received pursuant to the tender notice dated 15-4-1992 (Annexure-1). In the alternative, he has prayed that respondent no. 2 be directed to refund the cost of the tender papers amounting to Rs. 12,500/-, which had been paid for purchasing the necessary tender documents pursuant to the earlier advertisement published in the newspaper on 15-4-1992. 2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. By Annexure-l an advertisement was published in the newspaper on 15-4-1992 inviting lenders for the works specified in the aforesaid advertisement. In respect of the works in relation to repairs of Shitalpur-Parsa-Maker road, there were seven groups separately specified mentioning the estimated cost, and the period during which the work had to he completed. The same advertisement referred to other works in connection with repair of other roads. In all the advertisement related to 18 groups. The tenders were to be opened on 13-5-1992, The petitioner on payment of the cost of tender documents amounting to Rs. 12,500/- submitted tenders in respect of groups 1,2 and 5. According to him, in respect of groups 1 and 5 his tender was lowest and, therefore, the authorities sent up the papers to higher authorities for approval. However, respondent no. 2, the Engineer-in-Chief, sat over the matter, and did not either accept or reject the tender of the petitioner. By Annexure-2 dated 10-9-1992 respondent no. 2 purported to subdivide the works relating to groups 1,2,5 and 6. These four groups were sub-divided into 12 groups, and the estimated amount was said to be Rs.6837188/-. However, respondent no. 2, the Engineer-in-Chief, sat over the matter, and did not either accept or reject the tender of the petitioner. By Annexure-2 dated 10-9-1992 respondent no. 2 purported to subdivide the works relating to groups 1,2,5 and 6. These four groups were sub-divided into 12 groups, and the estimated amount was said to be Rs.6837188/-. Pursuant to Annexure-2 an advertisement was issued (Annexure 3-A) on 15-9-1992 inviting tenders for the works advertised the tenders were to be opened on 30th September, 1992. In the advertisement the estimated cost was stated to be Rs. 78,78,818/-. Approximately ten lacs more than what was the original estimated cost as mentioned in Annexure-2. The case of the petitioner is that the whole exercise was undertaken with a view to exclude persons like the petitioner, and to benefit persons who were favourites of respondent no. 2. It was submitted before us that there was no reason why the tenders submitted pursuant to the earlier advertisement could not be considered and why it was necessary to sub-divide the works of four groups into 12 groups. It was submitted that though groups 1,2,5 and 6 were sub-divided, other groups having similar estimated cost were not sub-divided, because the persons who had tendered for those groups happened to be the persons who were favorites of respondent no. 2. In sum and substance, the plea of the petitioner is that with a view to defeat the rights of the petitioner, and to benefit those who were the favorites of respondent no. 2, it was decided not to accept the lowest tenders submitted by the petitioner, and invite fresh tenders after sub-dividing the groups. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 2. Engineer-in-Chief, which is affirmed by the Executive Engineer working under respondent no. 2. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that the State Government is vested with the power to regroup the works for which tenders were invited. Since groups 1,2,5 and 6 were bigger groups, and related to repair works on stretches of roads extending over more than one kilometer, a decision was taken by the Hon'ble Minister incharge of the Road Construction Department to subdivide the groups into smaller groups. Accordingly, groups 1,2,5 and 6 were sub-divided. Since groups 1,2,5 and 6 were bigger groups, and related to repair works on stretches of roads extending over more than one kilometer, a decision was taken by the Hon'ble Minister incharge of the Road Construction Department to subdivide the groups into smaller groups. Accordingly, groups 1,2,5 and 6 were sub-divided. Annexure-A is the order said to have been passed by the Minister on 19-5-1992 i.e., six days after the opening of the tenders pursuant to the advertisement earlier published on 15-4-1992 Annexure-A is a buff-sheet, and it appears that the aforesaid order was recorded by the Minister in the buff-sheet at his own initiative, because it does not appear that the matter was placed before him by the officers of the Department. The order mentions that groups I and 2 related to repairs to' roads stretching over two kilometers, while groups 5 and 6 related to roads stretching over three kilometers. It was learnt that tenders had been submitted in respect of these groups by persons who did not have good road rollers and, therefore, in public interest, and in the interest of the works, the allotment of work was stayed and it was directed that these groups be subdivided into smaller groups so that the works related to stretches of the road extending upto one kilometer only. It was pursuant to the order of the Minister that the works were regrouped into smaller groups and a fresh advertisement was issued inviting tenders. It is further explained that the estimated cost was higher by about ten lacs in view of the fact that the schedule of rates had been revised in the meantime with the approval of the Department. The advertisement which was issued, therefore, disclosed higher estimated cost having regard to the enhanced rates. It is further stated in paragraph no. 10 of the counter-affidavit that after the order splitting up bigger groups into smaller ones, no order for inviting tenders for such bigger groups has been issued by the Government in this case. It is also stated that the tenderers did not produce any evidence of having road-rollers at the time of submission of lender documents and, therefore, the tenders• were invalid. Reference has been made to orders passed by this Court on 11-1-1993 in C.W.J.C. Nos. 12265 ad 12430 of 1992, whereby similar writ petitions had been dismissed by this Court in limine. Reference has been made to orders passed by this Court on 11-1-1993 in C.W.J.C. Nos. 12265 ad 12430 of 1992, whereby similar writ petitions had been dismissed by this Court in limine. It was, therefore, submitted that since the tenders were invalid, they did not deserve any consideration. In regard to the prayer for refund of the price paid by the petitioner for the bill of quantities, it has been submitted that since the amount was not refundable as per the rules, the petitioner could not claim refund of the amount paid by him while purchasing the bill of quantities. I do not propose to express any concluded opinion on this question, but the petitioner may raise this question later, if the occasion arises. 4. I shall first consider whether the respondents arc justified in raising the pica that the tenders were invalid since the tenderers did not submit along with their tenders any proof of the fact that they possessed road-rollers for executing the works. In my view, the plea cannot be urged in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has asserted that he possesses a road-roller. The advertisement (Annexure-1) no doubt mentions that in respect of groups 5 and & relating to shitalpur-Parsa-Maker road, bill of quantities will be issued only to such tenderers who along with their applications annex papers relating to ownership of road-roller, it is not disputed that in the instant case bill of quantity was issued in favour of the petitioner and there is no averment in the counter-affidavit that this was objected to at any stage. The tenders were accepted and were in fact opened on 13-51992. On that date as well no objection was raised on the ground that the petitioner and others had not submitted documentary proof to establish that they possessed road- rollers. In any event, even if it is contended that ownership of a road- roller was a necessary condition for acceptance of tenders, the tenders could be rejected on that ground if it was found that the condition was not fulfilled. In the instant case that stage was never reached. The tenders were never formally rejected on that ground or any other ground. Instead the works were re-grouped and a fresh advertisement was issued inviting tenders for the works advertised. In the instant case that stage was never reached. The tenders were never formally rejected on that ground or any other ground. Instead the works were re-grouped and a fresh advertisement was issued inviting tenders for the works advertised. It is, therefore, premature for the respondents to submit that the tenders submitted by the petitioner were invalid. In any event, this objection could only be taken in respect of group 5, and not in respect of group 1, because the requirement regarding ownership of road-roller was prescribed only in regard to works related to groups 5 and 6. 5. It was submitted before us that the rules enabled the Government to bifurcate the works and it was not incumbent upon the Government to award the entire contract to one tenderer. Assuming that it was open to the concerned authority to divide the works and to award the contract to more than one tenderer, that is of no relevance in the instant case because only after acceptance of tenders, such a decision could be taken by the authorities concerned while awarding the works. The instant case is not a case where the work has been divided and awarded to more than one tenderer. In the instant case the tenders submitted pursuant to the earlier advertisement have been ignored, and a fresh advertisement has been issued after regrouping the works of groups 1,2,5 and 6 into 12 groups. 6. The crucial question, therefore, is as to whether having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of re-grouping and thereafter re-advertising the works was justified. 7. I have earlier noticed that the Minister on his own issued the impugned order on a buff-sheet, and not on the file, directing that the works in groups 1,2,5 and 6 be sub-divided into smaller groups pertaining to stretches of one kilometer each. The order mentions that it was learnt that persons who had submitted tenders for those big groups did not possess good road-rollers. It is not understood how, and on what basis, the Minister came to this conclusion. From the buff-sheet it does not appear that the Minister had called for the file and after examining the same had passed the order. It appears that on his own initiative or on being informed by some one, he issued the order in the aforesaid buff-sheet. From the buff-sheet it does not appear that the Minister had called for the file and after examining the same had passed the order. It appears that on his own initiative or on being informed by some one, he issued the order in the aforesaid buff-sheet. Issuance of buff- sheets by Ministers in this State is a very common feature, something which deserves to be discouraged. If any fact comes to the notice of the Minister, he should call for the file and pass necessary orders. In such a case he can apply his mind to the relevant facts enabling him to take a decision. In the absence of the file if the Minister passes any order on the basis of what someone has told him, his order may be exposed to the criticism of having been passed on extraneous consideration. In• the instant case the petitioner asserts in his rejoinder affidavit that he owns a road- roller. It is not understandable on what basis the Minister mentioned in the buff-sheet that the persons who had tendered for the big groups did not possess 'good road-rollers'. It is also apparent from Annexure-l that apart from groups 1,2,5 and 6 there were other groups which related to repair works to the road for stretches more than one kilometer. Groups 3 and 4 relating to Parsa-Narainpur-Amnour road related to repair works stretching over two kilometers on that road. Similarly, group 2 of Manpur-Garkha road relates to six kilometers and groups 3 and 5 relate to two kilometers each. Group 4 of Saba Harihar Nath Mandir-Pahleja Ghat road relates to three kilometers. Replying to the assertion of the petitioner in the writ application that though groups 1,2,5 and 6 were sub-divided on the pretext that they related to repair to roads stretching over more than one kilometer, other similar big groups were not sub-divided, it has been vaguely asserted in paragraph no. 10 of the counter-affidavit that after the order for splitting the bigger groups into smaller ones of one kilometer each, no order inviting (tender) for bigger groups has been given by the Government in this ease. From the averment in paragraph no. 10 of the counter-affidavit one cannot even impliedly infer a denial of the allegation made in the writ application. From the averment in paragraph no. 10 of the counter-affidavit one cannot even impliedly infer a denial of the allegation made in the writ application. All that is stated is that after sub-dividing groups 1,2,5 and 6 into smaller groups, no order has been issued by the Government inviting tender for bigger groups in this case. This docs not answer the allegation made, namely, that the same advertisement related to other works, and some of those groups were as big as groups 1,2,5 and 6, but were not sub-divided on the ground that each work should not relate to repair to more than one kilometer of the road. If this was the genuine reason for sub-dividing t he works, the reason applied with equal force to other groups, referred to above, which also involved repairs to roads stretching over two kilometers and more. The counter- affidavit docs not assert the fact that those groups were also sub-divided and readvertised. I am not impressed by the reason disclosed in the counter-affidavit for sub-dividing the works, and I am inclined to accept the submission of t he petitioner that the authorities have acted arbitrarily in sub-dividing some of the works, and in not doing so in relation toot her works involving repair to roads stretching over two kilometers and more. An arbitrary procedure was adopted morely to exclude persons like the petitioner and to benefit those favoured by the authorities. If the reason disclosed were to be true and the action bonafide, all bigger groups covered by the same advertisement should have been sub-divided into smaller groups,- as was done in relation to groups 1,2,5 and 6, except for some special reasons. This was not done with the result that those who had originally submitted their tenders for groups 1,2,5 and 6 have been excluded from consideration, and others who had 'hid for similar groups relating to works stretching over more than two kilometers of the road have not been so excluded. The action is obviously arbitrary. I am advisedly not expressing any opinion on the question as to whether the action was malafide, because the Minister concerned on whose orders, recorded in the buff-sheet, the sub-division of groups took place, is not party before us. I do not, therefore, wish to express •any opinion on his conduct. 8. The action is obviously arbitrary. I am advisedly not expressing any opinion on the question as to whether the action was malafide, because the Minister concerned on whose orders, recorded in the buff-sheet, the sub-division of groups took place, is not party before us. I do not, therefore, wish to express •any opinion on his conduct. 8. The action taken, however, being arbitrary, I have no option but to quash the order of the Engineer-in-Chief subdividing the units by order dated 10-9-1992 (Annexure-2), and the advertisement issued pursuant thereto. (Annexure 3-A). I, however, make it clear that if the Government decides to sub-divide all the bigger groups covered by the advertisement (Annexure-I) so that no group relates to work on the road stretching over more than 'one kilometer, it will be open to the Government to issue a fresh advertisement inviting tenders in regard to all the works covered by the earlier advertisement (Anexure-1) published on 15-4-1992. If the Government decides not to do so, for whatever reasons, the tenders submitted pursuant to Annexure-1 in relation to groups 1,2,5 and 6 of Shitalpur-Parsa-Maker road shall be considered in accordance with law. 9. Before parting with this judgment I may also mention that the earlier orders of this Court dated 11-1-1993 relied upon by the respondents, do not disclose any reason for the dismissal of the writ applications. They arc not, therefore, in the nature of binding precedents, because grant of relief in exercise of writ jurisdiction being discretionary, I am not in a position to say for what reasons the relief was not granted to the petitioners in those cases. 10. This writ application is, therefore, allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.