IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12950 of 2010 Shashi Bhushan Prasad, son of Late Laxmi Narain Prasad, village Ramgauna Rupauli, PS Patory, Dist. Samastipur – Petitioner. Vs. 1. The General Manager, East Central Railway Zonal Office, Hajipur. 2. The Divisional Manager Commercial, East central Railway, Sonepur, Bihar. 3. The Assistant Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Sonepur. 4. Yogendra Rai, son of Late Anup Lal Rai, village Bhaua, PO Shahpur, Dist. Samastipur – Respondents. 2 13.8.2010 The office has pointed out two defects in this case. The first defect is not very relevant which is that the subject matter is not properly stated. The second defect is with respect to maintainability of the writ petition which has to be adjudicated by this court. The matter relates to settlement of a Jeep-Tempo stand in the railway premises of Shahpur Patori railway station for three years. The settlement was made in favour of respondent no.4 of CWJC No. 10916/2009, namely, Shahi Bhushan Prasad who is the petitioner in the present writ petition. The matter was heard and learned single Judge ordered as follows : “The award of tender in favour of respondent no.4 also stands quashed. The respondents have freedom to re-advertise and go for a fresh settlement. It will be in the interest of the respondents to formulate better terms and conditions without any ambiguity as to what they want in the future tender which may be invited.” In pursuance of that order contained in Annexure 6 the settlement was re-advertised. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of learned single Judge passed in CWJC No. 10916/2009 filed LPA No. 1960/2010 which was disposed of by this court without interfering 2 with the order of learned single Judge. The petitioner has filed Civil Review No. 169/2010 which is still pending. Considering the fact that the petitioner has availed remedies available to him, this fresh writ petition challenging the advertisement on the ground that he had not received notice of the writ petition and as such the order was ex parte, cannot be considered by this court in the present writ petition. The petitioner would be well advised to pursue the review application. This writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)