IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 16561 of 2008 Nikita Kumari, wife of Sri Babloo Purvey, resident of Mohalla - Saifullaganj (Harahi Treres) P S - LNMU, Dist - Darbhanga - Petitioner Versus 1 The Union of India through its Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Railway, Government of India, New Delhi 2 Zonal Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, Dist - Vaishali, Bihar 3 Divisional Rail Manager (Ba), East Central Railway, Samastipur, Bihar 4 Assistant Commercial Rail Manager, East Central Railway, Samastipur, Bihar 5 Station Superintendent (Rail), Darbhanga under DRM, Samastipur - Respondents *** For the petitioner : Mr Shahnawaz Ali, Advocate For the respondents : Dr Kumar Uday Pratap, Advocate *** 3 23.01.2009 The petitioner had responded to a tender issued by the East Central Railways for setting up telephone booths at different railway stations within Samastipur Division. Petitioner filed her tender but as her tender papers were not opened, she was aggrieved and has come to this Court. Railways have filed a detailed counter affidavit and, as such, pleadings are complete. With consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. In the counter affidavit, in paragraphs-9 and 10, it is stated that petitioner’s tender papers were filed in a sealed cover but the cover was blank. What is sought to be submitted by the respondents is that petitioner had not indicated the name and designation of the tendering authority nor her address on the cover and, as such, the tender Committee held the tender of the petitioner to be incompetent. It is further stated in paragraph-20 of the counter affidavit that for the tender in question, there were three tenderers but none of them fulfilled the 2 criteria as per tender notice and, hence, all tenders were held to be incompetent and consequently the tender itself has been cancelled. In my view, the respondents have acted in a super technical manner raising a technicality to defeat the legitimate claim of the petitioner. Address is to be given on the cover only to ensure that the tender papers are received by the appropriate authority. It is not in dispute that the tender papers were with the appropriate authority. Such a plea, in my view, is not of substance and is mere technicality. The answer to this is in the words of Lord Denning which is reported in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited -Versus- Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Others : … … … “Now I know that a public authority cannot be estopped from doing its public duty, but I do think it can be estopped from relying on a technicality and this is a technicality” … … … “Unnecessary technicality : Modern courts seek to cut down technicalities attendant upon a statutory procedure where these cannot be shown to be necessary to the fulfillment of the purposes of the legislation.” Thus, in my view, the rejection of petitioner’s tender cannot be justified. However, notwithstanding the aforesaid as it is stated in the counter affidavit that the said tender as a whole has been cancelled, in my view, it would be open to the petitioner to retender as and when tenders are issued afresh which should be done at the earliest. In view of the aforesaid facts and observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)