IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1016 of 2008 RAMA KANT SINGH, SON OF LATE Ram Khelawan singh, resident of 101, Lotus apartment, new Patliputra Colony, P.S. Patliputra, District- Patna. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA 2. The IRCON International Ltd. through its Managing Director, Plot No. C-4, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi- 110017. 3. The General Manager, IRCON International Ltd. Plot No.C- 4, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi- 110017. 4. The Additional General Manager, Project IRCON International Ltd. Plot No. C-4, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017. 5. The D.G.M.( Civil ) IRCON International Ltd. Plot No. C-4, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017. 6. The Manager, Finance, IRCON International Ltd. Plot No. C-4, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017. 7. The A.G.M. IRCON International Ltd. Sone Bhawan, Ist. Floor, Daroga Prasad Rai Path, Patna-1. 8. Dy. General Manager, Finance IRCON International Ltd. Sone Bhawan, Ist. Floor, Daroga Prasad Rai Patha, Patna-1. 9. The D.G.M. Civil IRCON International Ltd. A.P. Colony,Gaya. 10. M/s Raja Construction through Mr. Bharat Deo Singh Yadav ,resident of Ashok Nagar, Rampur, Distt. Gaya, Bihar-- Respondents. ------------- For the Appellant:- Mr. Mrigank Mauli For the Union of India:- Mr. S.K.Sharma, C.G.C. For Respondent no. 10 :- Mr. Y.V. Giri,Sr.Advocate. ----------------- 6 18-04-2009 Heard the parties and perused the order of the writ court under appeal. The facts mentioned by the writ court in the first paragraph of the order do not give a clear picture of important events. To avoid any confusion we note down the relevant facts as submitted by learned counsel for the appellant. On 11-9-2007 the initial tender notice was issued by M/s IRCON International Limited. The appellant - 2 - participated as a lone tenderer. His technical bid was rejected. Thereafter the writ petition was filed on 17-1- 2008. M/S IRCON then cancelled the first tender notice itself and issued second tender notice on 11-2-2008 in which the last date for submitting tender was 29-2-2008. The appellant did not participate in the tender process and instead chose to file I.A. No. 1592/2008 in the pending writ petition on 11-3-2008. Through this I.A. petitioner challenged the tender notice dated 11-2-2008 but the records of the writ petition disclose that the said I.A. was never pressed and no orders were passed in respect of the same. It has been submitted before us that no tenders were submitted in response to the tender notice dated 11-2-2008 leading to cancellation of that tender notice also. A third notice was issued on 15-2-2008. Appellant did not participate in the tender process and instead chose to file I.A. No. 4110/08 in the pending writ petition in which a prayer was made to implead respondent no.10, the contractor in whose favour the tender process was finally decided. A prayer was also made through the said I.A. to set aside the decision of the concerned authority accepting the tender of respondent - 3 - no.10. A careful perusal of I.A. No. 4110/08 discloses that the appellant sought to challenge the acceptance of tender of respondent no.10 but there was no challenge to the tender notice itself nor there was any prayer to stay the action of the respondents pursuant to tender notice dated 15-2-2008. In fact no stay was sought or granted. In the aforesaid factual situation, in paragraph-2 of the order under appeal the writ court has noticed that during the pendency of the writ petition the tender in question i.e. first tender was cancelled by the respondents and fresh tenders were issued. Petitioner, appellant herein, did not participate nor he challenged the fresh tenders. The tender was issued for the third time and the private respondent applied and was selected in the 3rd. tender in which petitioner did not participate. It has been submitted before this court that the real issue to be decided by the writ court was whether petitioner’s tender pursuant to first tender notice was rejected rightly or wrongly and whether on the relevant date the appellant/petitioner was black listed or not. The writ court clearly came to the conclusion that - 4 - Naresh once the authority had issued third tender notice leading to acceptance of tender by the private respondents, the petitioner had either to challenge the tender notice itself or else he had to participate and thereafter only he could have challenged the decision making process which resulted in acceptance of tender of the private respondent. In that view of the matter the writ court held that petitioner not having participated in the fresh tender it was not open for him to challenge the selection of the private respondents or his tender being rejected in the earlier tender process, already cancelled. We are in agreement with the conclusion of the writ court that either petitioner had to challenge the third and final tender notice itself or he had to participate in that tender process for challenging the out- come of the said process if it went against him. In view of aforesaid discussions, we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. ( Shiva Kirti Singh,J) ( Dharnidhar Jha, J) - 5 -