JUDGMENT : P.B. BAJANTHRI, J. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. In the instant petition, petitioner is one of the successful bidder, pursuant to NIT dated 15.04.2017, it is related to construction of office building at C.M. Secretariat (4 K.G.A.), Patna for the year 2017-18 on an estimated cost of Rs. 8,65,57,700/-. Up to the technical bid the estimated cost remained same. Only in the financial bid estimated cost has been enhanced to Rs. 11.71 Crores. At this stage the petitioner withdrew the bid. Consequently petitioner's EMD has been withheld. Hence, the present petition for release of withholding EMD amount. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that abruptly enhancing the estimated cost in the intervening period of bid process is not fair and so also in not giving opportunity. That apart, there was no corrigendum to NIT insofar as modifying the estimated cost. Therefore, withholding amount of the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent resisted the aforesaid contention and submitted that in terms of Clause No. 21 of NIT action has been taken. It is relevant to reproduce Clause 21:- ^^21- izkDdfyr jkf'k de ;k vf/kd gks ldrh gS rnuqlkj vxz/ku ,oa ifjek.k&foi= dh jkf'k ÄV cढ+ ldrh gSA^^ In terms of above Clause it was binding on the petitioner insofar as any change in the estimated cost. Therefore, there is no infirmity in withholding of EMD amount since the petitioner has withdrawn his bid. 5. Heard learned counsels for respective parties. 6. In the NIT, estimated cost of construction of the proposed building is at Rs. 8,65,57,700/-. Petitioner was a successful bidder in technical bid. At the stage of financial bid the respondents modified estimated cost of Rs. 8,65,57,700/-to that of Rs. 11.71 Crore. At this stage, petitioner withdrew from the bid process resulting in withholding of EMD amount in terms of Clause 21. No doubt, Clause 21 empowers the respondents to modify the estimated cost. At the same time, NIT should have been re-notified in order to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution. Further, petitioner has not been provided an opportunity to meet the requirement of enhanced estimate cost of Rs. 11.71 Crore. It may be advantage or disadvantage to the petitioner insofar as alteration of the estimated cost of the proposed construction of building. In other words, notice should have been issued and sought his consent. Further, petitioner has not been provided an opportunity to meet the requirement of enhanced estimate cost of Rs. 11.71 Crore. It may be advantage or disadvantage to the petitioner insofar as alteration of the estimated cost of the proposed construction of building. In other words, notice should have been issued and sought his consent. 7. In the light of these facts and circumstances, petitioner has made out a case. Accordingly, order dated 17.07.2017 (Annexure-1) stands set aside. The concerned respondent is hereby directed to refund the EMD amount along with 6% interest within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 8. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed.