IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.596 of 2009 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, Bihar, 2. The Chief Engineer (Construction), North, East Central Railway, Mahendrughat, Patna 3. The Deputy CE/Con/SHC/II at Samastipur, E.C.Railway, Samastipur 4. The Deputy FA & CAO (construction), East Central Railway, Mahendrughat, Patna.----Appellants Versus M/S J.S.COMPANY through one of its partner Sheo Nandan Singh, son of Sri Ram Bilash Singh,Resident of Village and P.O. Bihat,Distt-Begusarai. Petitioner-respondent. ----------- For the Union of India : Mr. Chitranjan Sinhg, Senior Advocate For the respondent : None. ----- 2. 06.5.2009. Appellants, aggrieved by the order dated 1.4.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C.No.15009 of 2008, have preferred this appeal. The East Central Railway issued a Tender Notice No.17 of 2007/Tender Notice No.19 of 2007 with respect to linking BG Track including dismantling etc between Daunam Madhepura to Banmankhi. The writ-petitioner along with others participated in the tender proceeding. Even though he was the lowest tenderer, his tender was rejected on scrutiny as the work completion certificate was not given. As per the terms and conditions, the work completion certificate of a similar work has to be produced showing that he has completed the similar work earlier. Petitioner relied on Annexure-2 the Certificate 2 issued by the Railway which shows that the petitioner was given an order for linking BG Track and dismantling etc on 18.10.2006 for an amount of Rs.1,81,30,831.06. The certificate shows that the work was completed according to the agreement. The certificate also shows that the amount was paid. It also shows that further work is being executed under variation. The contractor, being bound by the terms and conditions, has to complete the additional works at the same rate, if entrusted. The petitioner completed the original work as per the contract. The Railway has entrusted additional work. Before the date fixed for completing the work, the present teder was floated. Merely because that additional work was not completed, it cannot be stated that he has not completed similar works. For the earlier work which was done, the contract value was fixed at Rs.1,81,30,831.06. The original work entrusted was done completely. So merely because further work was entrusted on the same terms and conditions, it cannot be stated that he had not even completed one item of contract. In that case, a contractor can be intentionally kept out in award of new contract. Therefore, we agree with the learned Single Judge that the rejection of the tender of the petitioner was illegal and 3 there is procedural violation and arbitrariness. The second contention raised is that during the pendency of the proceeding, the second lowest tender was accepted. But that tenderer was not made a party in this case. It is for him to approach this Court if there is any grievance. This show the special interest of Railway. We agree with the learned Single Judge that the rejection of tender of the petitioner was illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, the tender acceptance has to be reconsidered. During the pendency of the writ petition why the Railway hurriedly accepted the tender is a mystery. The Railway has to reconsider the tenders submitted, with notice to all other tenderers. We do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed with the observation aforesaid. ahk (J.B.Koshi,CJ) (Dr.Ravi ranjan,J.)