IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.1401 of 2010 IN CWJC 12056 of 2009 WITH I.A. NO. 7856 of 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.1401 of 2010 ========================================== THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS - Appellant(s) Versus MANKESHWAR TEWARY- Respondent ========================================== Appearance: For the Appellant: Mr. SUDHIR SINGH ========================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 02. 07.09.2010 Reg: I.A. No. 7856 of 2010 This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by the appellant-Union of India for condonation of delay of 65 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Reg:Letters Patent Appeal No. 1401 of 2010 This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the East Central Railway against the judgment and order dated 21.04.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge 2 in C.W.J.C. No. 12056 of 2009. Subject matter of dispute is a tender notice issued by the East Central Railway for construction of Deluxe toilets on the Railway platforms at various stations. The East Central Railway after issuing the tender notice, after opening the technical bids as well as financial bids cancelled the tender process by its communication dated 5th August 2009. Feeling aggrieved the respondent-the highest bidder approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the action of the East Central Railway in cancelling the tender notice. The petition was contested by the East Central Railway. According to the learned counsel for the East Central Railway, while issuing the tender notice, the relevant guidelines issued by the Railways had been violated. He submits that the tender notice issued by the East Central Railway was contrary to the Circular of the Ministry of Railways. The learned Single Judge was not impressed by the defense raised by the East Central Railway. The learned judge has observed that after opening the technical bids and analyzing the same for many months the financial bids were not opened. When the financial bids were opened and considered on 25th June 2009, though the financial bid of the writ petitioner was the highest amongst all tenderers, no final award of tender was made in favour of the writ petitioner. Instead, the entire 3 tender process was cancelled. The allegation was that cancellation of tender notice was on extraneous ground. It appears that the learned Single Judge did not accept the defence put forth by the East Central Railway and issued direction to the East Central Railway to proceed further with the tender process. Feeling aggrieved the Union of India and the East Central Railway have preferred the present Appeal. Learned advocate Mr. Sudhir Singh has appeared for the East Central Railway. He has drawn our attention to the counter affidavit, particularly the policy which has been framed by the Government of India in its Ministry of Railways. He has submitted that in issuing the subject tender notice, certain features of the aforesaid policy were lost sight of. The tender notice was, therefore, required to be cancelled. He has submitted that the matters contained in paragraph-XII of the said policy in respect of selection of agency were particularly missed out. To be precise some of the Clauses of the said paragraph were missed out. He has submitted that some of the Clauses were missed on account of inadvertent or mistake. He has submitted that if the same tender process is proceeded further, the Railways would incur loss of revenue. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. It appears that whatever is missed out, may or may not be deliberately, the concerned officers are taking undue advantage of the missed-out Clauses 4 for cancelling the tender process. It appears that the projected violation of the guidelines is only a technical matter. The same tender process can be proceeded further without incurring expenses of inviting tenders afresh. This would unnecessarily delay the project also. We may observe that if any officer of the Railways has committed mistake causing loss of revenue to the East Central Railways, the East Central Railways can proceed against such officers and recover the amount of losses from such officers. We see no merit in this Appeal. Appeal is dismissed in limine. Interlocutory Application No. 7856 of 2010 stands disposed of. S.Sb/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)