IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.563 of 2010 Ram Badan Singh (aged about 41 years), son of Shri Ram Naresh Prasad Singh, resident of Village - Mahendrapur, P.S - Hathidah, District – Patna. ….Petitioner- Appellant. Versus 1. The Union of India, through the Secretary (Ministry of Rail), Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. The Director, Vigilance Railway Board (Rail Bhawan), New Delhi. 4. The G.M., Eastern Central Railway, Hajipur. 5. The D.R.M. Eastern Central Railway, Danapur. 6. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager (E.C. Railway), Danapur. 7. The Senior Divisional Engineer (Cord), Danapur. 8. The Assistant Commercial Manager (E.C. Railway), Danapur. 9. The Divisional Commercial Manager (E.C. Railway), Danapur. ….Respondents…Respondents. ----------- 02- 24.3.2011 None appears on behalf of the appellant. Heard Mr. Lalan Kumar, learned junior counsel to Mr. Naresh Dixit for the respondents. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 5.2.2010, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.15547 of 2008 (Ram Badan Singh Vs. the Union of India and others), whereby the writ petition was dismissed and the order of the Railways terminating the contract with the writ petitioner has been upheld. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. After following the selection process, the appellant (writ petitioner) was granted contract for collection of parking fee of cycle, scooter, car, taxi stand at Hathidah Railway Station, for a 2 period of three years, vide agreement inter-parties dated 28.2.2007. Soon thereafter the authorities received complaint that the appellant was a notorious criminal of that area and was involved in a number of criminal cases of serious nature. This was followed by a show-cause notice to the appellant as to why the contract be not terminated. On a consideration of the same, the contract has been terminated, leading to the writ petition. 3. It appears to us that the contract has been terminated for valid reasons. It is of paramount importance that a person of such notoriety, having been involved in a number of criminal cases of serious nature, cannot be awarded a Government contract. Secondly, the appellant had furnished a false character certificate, which suppressed the relevant details about the antecedents of the appellant. It is thus evident that the appellant had obtained the contract by fraud and misrepresentation. Law is well settled that no body can retain a benefit obtained by deceitful means. 4. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and is accordingly dismissed. (S.K. Katriar, J.) (S.P. Singh, J.) S.K.Pathak/