IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 1805 of 2009 Vijay Kumar Anand, S/o Ram Chandra Panjiyer, Resident of Mohalla - Rahamganj, P O - Lalbagh, P S - Laheriasarai, 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, District - 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 D R M, Samastipur - Respondents ----------- 4 18.02.2009 Railways issued a tender for settling telephone booths. This was composite notice inviting tender in respect of almost 12 different telephone booths situated at 6 different stations and even in stations at different platforms. It is for convenience sake that all were included in one tender. Petitioner was desirous of applying for setting up of telephone booth at Darbhanga. He filed his technical and financial bid which were both enclosed in one single envelope but forgot to write that it was in response to tender DBG/6. There being no address code and the envelope was blank, the authorities having received all the tenders could not put it in either of the individual tenders, he was disqualified. His grievance is that he immediately thereafter disclosed the tender in respect of which he had filed his tender but it was not accepted. He has come to this Court stating that this was mere a technicality and formality for which his tender papers ought not to be rejected. He has relied on earlier judgment of this Court given in the case of Nikita Kumari -Versus- Union of India & Others in CWJC No 16561 of 2008 decided on 23.01.2009. Railways have appeared. Heard the parties and with their 2 consent, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. Petitioner submits that as in the earlier decided case so in the present case, only the address on the covering envelope was missing. In the earlier decided case, this Court allowed the writ application holding that it was mere technicality and same course should be followed in the present case. In that case, this Court has noticed that the address of the office of the tender had to be given so that it is received by the proper authority. It was not in dispute that notwithstanding the same missing, it had reached the appropriate authority. It is in that view of the matter, this Court held that it was too technical an objection to be entertained. In the present case, it is clear that the tender is in respect of 12 different items in which each individual is a tender by itself. Once all the tenders are received, they are to be allocated to individual tenders where would petitioner’s tender be located to in absence of the ID thereon. It cannot be allocated to any particular tender and, as such, had to be rejected as such. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any irregularity in the procedure and find that the earlier decided case is clearly distinguishable in facts of the present case. The writ petition is dismissed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)