JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. In both L.P.A. Nos. 912 of 1995 and 1078 of 1995, the order of learned Single Judge dated 14th August, 1995, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3964 of 1995 [ 1995 (2) PLJR 554 ], is under challenge. In the other L.P.A. No. 1473 of 1995, the order of learned Single Judge dated 18th September, 1995, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4064 of 1995, is under challenge. As all the L.P.As. are inter-linked and L.P.A. Nos. 912 of 1995 and 1078 of 1995 are depended on L.P.A. 1473 of 1995, with the consent of the parties, they are being heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. As L.P.A. Nos. 912 of 1995 and 1078 of 1995 are to some extent dependent on the decision of L.P.A. No. 1473 of 1995, it is for the said reason, I am discussing the merit of L.P.A. No. 1473 of 1995, prior to discussion of the rest two L.P. As. which are given hereunder : L.P.A. No. 1473 of 1995; The petitioner-appellant, namely, Rashtriya Pariyojana Nirman Nigam (R.P.N.N. for short) is a Government of India Enterprise. The Respondents- State of Bihar, from its Water Resources Department invited tender on 19th August, 1985. Tender paper was submitted by the petitioner-appellant along with others, but ultimately the tender notice dated 19th August, 1985 was not acted upon. Fresh tender notice was issued by the State of Bihar on 4th December, 1989. This time, again the petitioner-appellant, R.P.N. (earlier known as N.P.C.C.) participated and submitted tender. The petitioner-appellant, R.P.N.N. was second lowest tenderer before the State of Bihar. The first lowest tenderer, namely, one Pashupati Developer, having refused to accept the work, the letter of intent was issued to petitioner-appellant R.P.N.N. on 1st November, 1990 (vide Annexure 5 to the writ petition) at the rates of lowest tenderer. The petitioner-appellant, R.P.N.N. protested against the condition vide their letter dated 9th November, 1990 and the matter was discussed between the petitioner-appellant, R.P.N.N. and State Government on 21st November, 1990. The petitioner-appellant, R.P.N.N. requested the Water Resources Department of State of Bihar by letter dated 22nd January, 1991 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) to amend the conditions of the letter of intent, as per provisions of tender of documents. Further request was made for supply of steel, cement and P.O.L. departmentally on the tender document rates. The petitioner-appellant, R.P.N.N. requested the Water Resources Department of State of Bihar by letter dated 22nd January, 1991 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) to amend the conditions of the letter of intent, as per provisions of tender of documents. Further request was made for supply of steel, cement and P.O.L. departmentally on the tender document rates. Having received such letter, Water Resources Department of State of Bihar issued show cause notice to the petitioner-appellant, R.P.N.N. by letter dated 1st July, 1991 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition), as to why the petitioner-appellant, R.P.N.N. submitted reply on 17th July, 1991 (vide Annexure-10 to the writ petition). It was pointed out in their show cause reply that though letter of intent was given, the same was not consonance with the provisions of the tender documents. They further pointed out that even the agreement had not been reached. It was intimated by petitioner-appellant, R.P.N.N. that they were desirous to work, if the letter of intent is amended in terms with the provisions of the tender documents and materials like cement, steal and P.O.L. are departmentally made available. Thereafter, by impugned letter dated 26th September, 1991 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), the show cause reply of petitioner appellant, R.P.N.N. was rejected and this petitioner-appellant was blacklisted. This impugned letter was under challenge in C.W.J.C. No. 4064 of 1995. In the writ petition, specific plea was taken by the petitioner-appellant, R.P.N.N. that the impugned order dated 26th September, 1991, black-listing the petitioner-appellant, R.P.N.N. was never served on them. They came to know about the impugned letter dated 26th September, 1991 only in the month of June, 1995, when by one order of Vice-Chairman of Patna Regional Development Authority (P.R.D.A for short), with respect to another contract, such contract was denied on the basis of impugned letter dated 26th September, 1991. The petitioner appellant, R.P.N.N. having come to know of the impugned order, challenged the same by filing C.W.J.C. No. 4064 of 1995, immediately on 22nd June, 1995. The writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 4064 of 1995) has been rejected by impugned order dated 18th September, 1995 by the learned Single Judge, which is under challenge in the present L.P.A. No. 1473 of 1995. The writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 4064 of 1995) has been rejected by impugned order dated 18th September, 1995 by the learned Single Judge, which is under challenge in the present L.P.A. No. 1473 of 1995. The rejection has been made on the ground of delay and the learned Single Judge observed that it was difficult to accept that the petitioner-appellant, R.P.N.N. had no knowledge of the impugned order/letter dated 26th September, 1991 during the past four years. The merit with respect to the impugned order/letter dated 26th September, 1991 to the effect as to whether the petitioner-appellant, R.P.N.N. was rightly black-listed or not, has not been discussed by the impugned judgment dated 18th September, 1995. 3. The main contention raised by the petitioner-appellant, R.P.N.N. are two folds: (a) The impugned order/letter dated 26th September, 1991 was never communicated to the petitioner-appellant, R.P.N.N. and they had no knowledge with respect to the same prior to June, 1995. (b) The impugned order/letter dated 26th September, 1991, blacklisting the petitioner-appellant, R.P.N.N., is based on non est. ground. The agreement having not been reached between the parties, there was no question of loss of any exchequer of the State Government, as has been suggested in the impugned order of black-listing. The counsel for the petitioner-appellant, R.P.N.N., while further drawing the attention towards the relevant facts, submitted that the letter of intent was forced on the petitioner appellant, R.P.N.N. de hors the provision laid down in the tender paper which the petitioner-appellant, R.P.N.N. refused to accept, for which the petitioner appellant, R.P.N.N. cannot be black-listed. 4. The counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the impugned letter/order was issued in the name of the petitioner-appellant, R.P.N.N. on 26th September, 1991. 5. As the main dispute in the present case is as to where the impugned letter/order dated 26th September, 1991 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) was ever served on the petitioner-appellant, R.P.N.N. or not, we looked into the pleading made by the parties in the writ petition. The petitioner-appellant, R.P.N.N. in Paragraph-3 (XXI), as well as in Paragraph -5 of the writ petition has categorically stated that the impugned letter/order dated 26th September, 1991 was never communicated to the petitioner-appellant, R.P.N.N. and they were not aware of the said impugned letter/order till they came to know after order of Vice-Chairman of P.R.D.A. dated 4th June, 1995. The petitioner-appellant, R.P.N.N. in Paragraph-3 (XXI), as well as in Paragraph -5 of the writ petition has categorically stated that the impugned letter/order dated 26th September, 1991 was never communicated to the petitioner-appellant, R.P.N.N. and they were not aware of the said impugned letter/order till they came to know after order of Vice-Chairman of P.R.D.A. dated 4th June, 1995. This categorical statement made by the petitioner-appellant, R.P.N.N. has not been denied by the Respondents-State of Bihar and its authorities in their counter affidavit. Simply, it has been sated that the impugned letter dated 26th September, 1991 was communicated to the petitioner-appellant, R.P.N.N., without stating therein as to whether the same was ever served on the petitioner-appellant, R.P.N.N. or not. 6. For the reasons stated above, according to me, in absence of specific statement, it cannot be presumed that the impugned letter/order dated 26th September, 1991, which was issued by the authorities of the Respondent- State of Bihar was served on the petitioner-appellant, R.P.N.N. and/or the petitioner-appellant and its authorities had knowledge relating to the same, prior to 4th June, 1995. I find that the learned Single Judge has erred in giving a finding on presumption by disbelieving the fact that the petitioner-appellant, R.P.N.N. had no knowledge of the said impugned letter-order dated 26th September, 1991. Further, I hold that the impugned letter/order dated 26th September, 1991 (Annexure-1 to the writ petitioner) is completely cryptic, as well as, is based on nonest fact and the same is declared to be illegal. L.P.A. Nos. 912/95 & 1078/95 : 7. The Patna Regional Development Authority (P.R.D.A.) issued one prequalification tender notice in October, 1994, for the purpose of construction of one 'Maurya Tower' in the compound of Mauryalok Complex, Patna. The contracts was to the tune of Rs. 460.00 Lakh. A number of Contractors/ Firms/ Companies applied in pursuance of the said pre-qualification tender notice, including Rashtriya Pariyojana Nirman Nigam (R.P.N.N.), M/s. Walia Builders and M/s. Hindustan Steel Construction Limited (H.S.C.L. for short). After such pre-qualification tender, giving certain relaxation, five Contractors, Firms/ Companies were allowed to take part in the final tender. Pre-bid conference was held in the office of the Vice-Chairman of the P.R.D.A, but only three such Agencies finally submitted tenders, namely, (1) M/s. Rashtriya Pariyojana Nirman Nigam; (ii) M/s. Walia Builders; and (iii) M/s. Hindustan Steel Construction Limited. After such pre-qualification tender, giving certain relaxation, five Contractors, Firms/ Companies were allowed to take part in the final tender. Pre-bid conference was held in the office of the Vice-Chairman of the P.R.D.A, but only three such Agencies finally submitted tenders, namely, (1) M/s. Rashtriya Pariyojana Nirman Nigam; (ii) M/s. Walia Builders; and (iii) M/s. Hindustan Steel Construction Limited. R.P.N.N. who was the lowest tenderer out of the three bidders, which are, as follows : (i) M/s. R.P.N.N. (formerly known as N.P.C.C) -14% above schedule rate (ii) M/s. Walia Builders - 22% above schedule rate (iii) M/s. H.S.C.L. - 29.15% above schedule rate. The matter was placed before the Tender Committee. The Committee vide its meeting dated 30th May, 1995, found that the bid given by M/s. R.P.N.N. was the lowest one, but decided not to consider the case of M/s. R.P.N.N. on the ground that the said M/s. R.P.N.N. was black-listed by the Water Resources Department of the State of Bihar, vide one letter/order dated 26th September, 1991. Accordingly, they allotted the work in favour of M/s. Walia Builders, after negotiation, at a rate as was quoted by M/s. R.P.N.N. In the aforesaid background, M/s. R.P.N.N. filed writ petitioner (C.W.J.C. No. 3964), challenging the memo dated 4th June, 1995, whereby the Tender Committee's decision dated 30th May, 1995 was circulated, refusing grant of contract of said work of Maurya Tower in favour of R.P.N.N. on the ground that the said M/s. R.P.N.N. was blacklisted by the Water Resources Department of the State of Bihar. The appellants of L.P.A. No. 912 of 1995, namely, P.R.D.A. and its authorities and the appellant of L.P.A. No. 1078 of 1995, namely, M/s. Walia Builders were made party-Respondents in the said C.W.J.C. No. 3964 of 1995. The learned Single Judge by impugned order dated 14th August, 1995 has allowed the said writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 3964 of 1995), setting aside the decision of the Committee held in its meeting dated 30th May, 1995 (Annexure-3 to the said writ petition), by which it was decided not to allot work in favour of M/s. R.P.N.N. By the said order, the P.R.D.A. has been directed to reconsider the tender in the light of observations and decision given in the said case. The aforesaid writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 3964 of 1995) has been allowed mainly on two grounds, namely, (i) M/s. R.P.N.N. was black-listed by the State Government by letter/ order dated 26th September, 1991, which does not make the said M/s. R.P.N.N. automatically disqualified for work under P.R.D.A. an Autonomous Body and (ii) before black-listing M/s. R.P.N.N. by P.R.D.A., vide its meeting dated 30th May, 1995, no show cause notice was given to said M/s. R.P.N.N. by the appellants-P.R.D.A. and its authorities. 8. When the case was taken up, counsel for the appellants-P.R.D.A. mainly made submission attacking the impugned order dated 14th August, 1995, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3964 of 1995. Such argument was adopted by the counsel for the other appellant, namely, M/s. Walia Builders. It was submitted by the counsel for the appellants-P.R.D.A. that M/s. R.P.N.N. was not a Contractor of P.R.D.A., and thereby, there was no question of black-listing of said M/s. R.P.N.N. According to him the question of black listing M/s R.P.N.N. having not arisen, the question of giving show cause notice to said M/s. R.P.N.N. also does not arise. Further, according to the counsel for the P.R.D.A., though tender submitted by M/s. R.P.N.N. was lowest, but before allotting such work in favour of the party, it was always open to the authorities of the P.R.D.A. to look into the antecedents of the builder (M/s. R.P.N.N. in the case). It was submitted that the antecedents of M/s. R.P.N.N. being not good, having been blacklisted by Government of Bihar for five years, by letter/order dated 26th September, 1991, it was taken into account, and thereby vide meeting of the Committee dated 30th May, 1995, it was rightly decided not to allot the work in favour of said M/s. R.P.N.N. 9. According to me, the aforesaid contention raised by the counsel for the P.R.D.A. may hold good in the prevailing circumstances, as was there on 30th May, 1995, there being an order of black-listing against M/s. R.P.N.N. at that point of time. However, as I have already held that the order of black listing dated 26th September, 1991, so far as M/s. R.P.N.N. is concerned, is illegal and have already set aside the same, the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellants-P.R.D.A. duly supported by the other counsel for the appellant, cannot be accepted at this stage. However, as I have already held that the order of black listing dated 26th September, 1991, so far as M/s. R.P.N.N. is concerned, is illegal and have already set aside the same, the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellants-P.R.D.A. duly supported by the other counsel for the appellant, cannot be accepted at this stage. The order of black-listing dated 26th September, 1991 having been set aside by this Court in the interest of justice, it is always desirable to reconsider the matter, including the case of R.P.N.N., without taking into account that the said M/s. R.P.N.N. was blacklisted. It is also desirable, for the purpose of healthy competition, that more number of bidders take part in bidding/tender, when the work is for a sum which is more than 460.00 lakhs. 10. For the reasons stated above, though the reasoning’s given by the learned Single Judge, by the impugned order dated 14th August, 1995, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3964 of 1995, may not be good, but for the discussions made in the preceding paragraph, the proceeding of the Committee dated 30th, May, 1995 is liable to be set aside and I hold that the Respondents are duty-bound to reconsider the matter afresh. In the aforesaid background, I am not inclined to interfere with the direction given by the learned Single Judge aforesaid. 11. Accordingly, I allow L.P.A. No. 1473 of 1995, and thereby set aside the impugned order dated 18th September 1995, passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 4064 of 1995, as well as the impugned letter/order dated 26th September, 1991 (Annexure-1) to the said writ petition). The other two L.P.As, namely, L.P.A. No. 912 of 1995 and L.P.A. No. 1078 of 1995, are dismissed. D.P. Wadhwa, CJ.-I agree.