IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.186 of 2009 SURENDRA PRASAD, S/O LATE JANKI SHARAN, RESIDENT OF AT & P.O. PARAS NAGAR, P.S. BAGAHA, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN……………………………………………..PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER , EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAJIPUR, BIHAR. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION) NORTH, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, MAHENDRU GHAT, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY CE/CON/SHC/II AT SAMASTIPUR, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, SAMASTIPUR. 4. THE DEPUTY FA & CAO (CONSTRUCTION) EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, MAHENDRU GHAT, PATNA. 5. M/S J.S. COMPANY THROUGH ONE OF ITS PARTNERS, SHEO NANDAN SINGH, S/O SHRI RAM BILASH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O. BIHAT, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI. ……………………RESPONDENT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Advocate. For the Union of India : Mr. Siddharatha Prasad, Advocate. 3. 9.9.2009. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for Union of India representing the Railways, we are of the view that no notice need be issued to Respondent No.5, who was the writ petitioner, in view of the nature of order proposed. The writ petitioner succeeded in obtaining relief from the writ court through order dated 1.4.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No.15009 of 2008. The Railways preferred L.P.A. No.596 of 2009 but the said appeal was dismissed even after noticing the second contention raised on behalf of the Railways that the second lowest tender has been accepted but that tenderer was not made a party in the case. It was further observed that it is for him (the second lowest tenderer) to approach this Court if there is any grievance. - 2 - The second lowest tenderer has filed this petition seeking review of the order passed in L.P.A. No.596 of 2009 dated 6.5.2009 on the ground that he was the necessary party to the writ petition because work was allotted to him much before filing of the writ petition, vide acceptance letter dated 4.8.2008, as contained in Annexure ‘1’. In the facts of the case, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served by issuing notice to the writ petitioner when the real issue is whether the order passed by the writ court be reviewed or not on the ground as raised by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, in order to avoid wastage of public time and money, we observe that the order dated 6.5.2009 passed in L.P.A. No.596 of 2009 shall not stand in the way of the petitioner in seeking review of the order dated 1.4.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No.15009 of 2008. It goes without saying that if there is necessity of entertaianing the review petition on merits, the writ court may consider to issue notice to the writ petitioner. The interim relief can also be prayed by the writ petitioner before the court concerned. This Civil Review is, accordingly, disposed of. P.S. (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J)