IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18022 of 2008 UDAY KUMAR, son of Sri. Krishna Ballabh Prasad Singh, resident of Flat No. 204, Narayan Shri Appartment Anandpuri, P.S.-Sri. Krishnapuri, District-Patna, proprietor of S.B. Publishers and Distributors, Khajanchi Road, Patna-800004. ………Petitioner Versus 1. The Bihar School Examination Board(Senior Secondary) through its Chairman, Budh Marg, Patna. 2. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board(Sr. Secondary) Budh Marg, P.S.-Kotwali, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board,(Sr. Secondary) Budh Marg, P.S.-Kotwali, Patna. 4. The Director(Academics) B.S.E.B.(Sr. Secondary) Budh Marg, P.S.- Kotwali, Patna-1. 5. Kanak Prakashan through its proprietor Manoj Kumar, son of Sri Uma Prasad, resident of Raghubansam Appartment, Road No. 5, Puniachak, P.S.-Shastri Nagar, District-Patna. …….Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner : Dr. K.N.Singh, Sr. Adv. : Mr. Manish Kumar For the B.S.E.B. : Gijnesh Kumar, Adv. ---------- 02. 30.04.2009 The Bihar School Examination Board (Senior Secondary) allowed one Kanak Prakashan to print model sample question papers and key answers under the aegis of the Board on payment of royalty. While this work was going on, suddenly on the grounds of irregularity in selection the petitioner’s settlement was cancelled and a tender afresh was issued. In the second tender, it was stated that it would be entertained from persons who had no past experience - 2 - of publishing model sample question papers and key answers. The said Kanak Prakashan challenged it before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 15485 of 2008. Learned Advocate General who appeared for the Board agreed to withdraw Annexure-1 which was the cancellation order and Annexure-2 which was the re-tender notice. The writ petition thus become infructuous. It may be noted that an intervention application was filed opposing grant of any relief to the writ petitioner therein. As the writ petition itself becomes infructuous, liberty was granted to the intervener to challenge the action of the Board in withdrawing Annexure 1 & 2 respectively of the said writ application. The Board again issued a tender. The Kanak Prakashan again filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 16610 of 2008 which was disposed of on 28.11.2008. The learned Advocate General again appearing for the Board clearly stated that the effort was only to break the monopoly of Kanak Prakashan who was not entitled for any monopoly in the matter of publication of model sample question papers and key answers under the aegis of the Board. On this assurance the writ petition was disposed of. In the present writ petition, the writ petitioner has challenged the first settlement as made with the said - 3 - Kanak Prakashan who have made Respondent No. 5 in the present writ application. It is submitted that settlement was made without proper advertisement and without following the procedure as laid down in the Financial Rules. Petitioner was also one of the tenderers in that tender and had quoted favourable rates but was wrongly excluded from the entire tender process. In my view, petitioner is precluded from raising any challenge to the first tender based on grounds of violation of Rules for the simple reason that petitioner himself had participated therein and again challenged the same. Dr. K. N. Singh, on behalf of the petitioner submits that in any situation a second tender was issued challenged to it was withdrawn by the said Kanak Prakashan in C.W.J.C. No. 16610 of 2008 and there was yet another tender issued thereafter for the said purpose. Dr. K.N. Singh, leaned Senior Counsel submits that they were in furtherance to what the learned Advocate General had submitted breaking monopoly of the said Kanak Prakashan but regrettably no independent person has been given the contract. Here I may state that as per the Board, third tender was only for printing of such books. It is further submitted on behalf of the Board that as stated by the - 4 - learned Advocate General on an earlier occasion that subsequent tenders were towards breaking of monopoly of the said Kanak Prakashan and that has been done. Now Board on its own is publishing the said book as well. In my view, the writ petition can not succeed. Even if the writ petition was to succeed and the very first tender was to be cancelled, petitioner would not get any relief rather the only relief is to get would be seeing that the Kanak Prakashan making its tender with no gain to the petitioner. The rest of the tenders petitioner is not really interested. Thus effectively even on success petitioner would not get relief. In such a situation it is well settle that the writ petition should not be entertained where petitioner is not likely to get any relief at all, the question of selection of Kanak Prakashan thus becomes academic. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)