IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.603 of 2009 1. UNION OF INDIA through Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur 4. Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), Mahendrughat, Patna, Distt- Patna 5. The Chief Engineer/Construction/Ganga Rail Bridge, East Central Railway, Mahendra Ghat, Patna District- Patna. 6. The Deputy Chief Engineer(Construction) Ganga Rail Bridge, East Central Railway, Dighaghat, Patna…………Respondents/Appellants Versus TANTIA CONSTRUCTION COMP.LTD., Block-EP, Plot-76, Sector-5, Salt Lake City, Kotkata…………Petitioner-Respondent. ----------- For Appellant:-Mr.Chitranjan Sinha, Sr.Advocate Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Advocate For respondent:-Mr.Y.V.Giri, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rajiv Giri, Adv. Mr.Ashish Giri, Adv. ---------------- 5. 29-Jul-09 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. After going through the judgment and order under appeal, we find that the writ court has considered the entire matter in its proper perspective and has come to correct conclusions that subsequently changed designs and nature of work became the dominant work much beyond the original work for which tender had been issued and which was allotted to the writ 2 petitioner. The clauses of the original agreement cannot be applied to the changed circumstances nor can the arbitration clause be invoked in the present situation when the action of the appellant authorities has been rightly found to be arbitrary. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to persuade us to go into various clauses of the agreement as well as to look into a number of judgments cited as precedents. After noticing the relevant facts and the discussions made by the writ court we find no merit in the appeal. Hence, it is dismissed in limine. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Anjana Prakash,J.)