IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.767 of 2008 ------- Sunil Prasad Singh, S/O Shri Laxmi Narayan Singh, resident of Mohanpur Road, Samastipur P.S. Muffasil, District Samastipur. … Appellant---- Petitioner Versus 1. The Bihar State Beverages Corporation through its Managing Director, Bidyut Bhawan II, First Floor, Jawahar Lal Neharu Marg, Patna. 2. The Managing Director, Bihar State Beverages Corporation, Bidyut Bhawan II, First Floor, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg Patna. 3. The General Manager, Bihar State Beverages Corporation, Bidyut Bhawan II, First Floor, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg Patna. 4. The Depot Manager, Samastipur Depot of the Bihar State Beverages Corporation, Samastipur. Respondents … Respondents ----------- For the appellant : Mr.R. K.Giri, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. P.K.Shahi, Senior Advocate Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate -------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----- Dated, the 30th September, 2008 I.A. no. 6089 of 2008 L.P.A. suffers from delay of seven days and for condonation thereof, an application (I.A. No. 6089 of 2008) has been made. Even if, we condone the delay in filing the appeal, appeal does not deserve to be admitted. In the light of the report submitted by the Excise Inspector dated 8th May, 2008, the process of re-tender cannot be said to be unjustified. The godown offered by the appellant is located at a place - 2 - of which access road is hardly 15 ft. wide. In the said access road, there are various government offices where every day, there is crowd for deposit of telephone bills etc. Moreover, it has been found that the area that was shown by the present appellant as his own area, was part of the office of general insurance and other shops. 2. Keeping these factors in mind, if it was found that the godown offered by the appellant is not located at a suitable place and that re-tender was required, the action of the respondents cannot be faulted. 3. However, we clarify that the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal is not a licence to the respondents to accept the offer of Alok Kumar Goyanka. If he bids along with other bidders, the comparative merits of the bidders shall be examined and then, tender shall be accepted by the concerned authorities. 4. With the aforesaid clarification, L.P.A. is dismissed. 5. Needless to say that if by acceptance of bid, the appellant has suffered any loss, it is always open to him to prosecute the remedy available for claim of damages against the respondents. 6. This disposes of I.A. No. 6089 of 2008 as well. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil/