JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner prays for quashing the letter no. 82/Madhya dated 18.6.2009, as contained in Annexure-6, issued by the Joint Secretary (Engineering), Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna whereby a direction was given to the Chief Engineer to invite a re-tender after cancelling the earlier tender bearing notice no. 06/2008-09 for residual earth work and structure of high level main canal from RD 20.00 to RD 29.70 in the district of Bhagalpur. 2. Pursuant to the notice inviting tender the petitioner and others submitted their tenders. It will appear from the tender documents, as contained in Annexures-1 and 7 that the estimated cost of the work involved was Rs. 98.40 Lacs and the amount could deviate either way after working out the work bill. It would appear from Annexure-7 that keeping the aforesaid aspect into consideration the estimated cost was also kept at Rs. 1,01,61,312.00. The petitioner being successful both in technical and financial bid was awarded work by order dated 23.5.2009 issued by the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Bhagalpur, as contained in Annexure-3. It appears that by the aforesaid letter the Executive Engineer, Ganga Pump Canal Division, Kahalgaon was also directed to do the foilow up agreement. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to Annexure-3 allotting work in favour of petitioner, he immediately arranged his plant and machinery and other equipments and purchased bricks, stones, chips, cement, home pipes etc. and in this way he incurred an expenditure of about Rs. 25 lacs. He further submits that after allotment of work to the petitioner, one M/s Jai Tara Construction filed a complaint vide Annexure-4 before the respondent no. 2 who in turn directed the Chief Engineer to make an enquiry and submit a report. The Chief Engineer submitted his report by his letter dated 7.6.2009 stating therein that he found the tender notice as well as allotment of work in order. However, the Joint Secretary (Engineering), Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar by his letter dated 18.6.2009 passed the impugned order directing the Chief Engineer for making a re-tender. 4. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner although the enquiry report did not find any irregularity or illegality either in the tender paper or in the allotment of work. 4. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner although the enquiry report did not find any irregularity or illegality either in the tender paper or in the allotment of work. He submits that in any view of the matter the impugned order has been passed unilaterally which could not be done once the work order has been allotted in favour of the petitioner pursuant to which he has incurred heavy expenditures for completing the work within the time frame. In support of his contention, he relied upon decisions of this court in the case of Mandar Madhusudan Bahudhandhi Swablambi Sahkari Samittee Ltd. & Anr. vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 2007(2) P.L.J.R. 17 and in the case of National Project Construction Corporation Limited vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 2007(2) P.L.J.R. 40 . 5. Learned State Counsel submits that as estimated cost increases Rs. 1 crore, the grade of tender category changes. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that once tender has been awarded in favour of the petitioner, the impugned order without giving hearing to the petitioner directing for re-tender particularly when the enquiry report of the Chief Engineer did not find any irregularity, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. As such respondent no. 2 would pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, who would respond to the notice without any delay. 7. Till further decision by respondent no. 2, the impugned order is kept in abeyance. It is expected that respondent no. 2 will pass a fresh order within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. 9. Let a copy of this order be handed over to AAG-9 for onward communication.