The High Court of Patna dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal against a Single Judge's order rejecting a tender due to non-filing of an affidavit, rejecting the appellant's fresh plea. The court held no interference was warranted.
The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. Interlocutory applications shall stand disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1575 of 2014 IN
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17928 of 2014
=========================================================== Uma Kant Tiwary, Son of Late Kamla Tiwary, Resident of Village Kab, P.S. Rani Talab, District Patna.
.... .... Petitioner/Appellant Versus
.... ....Respondents/ Respondents
========================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dhrub Narayan, Sr. Advocate Mr. Devi Das Srivastava For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prabhat Kumar, AC to GA 2
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF USTICE) Date: 13-02-2015
This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the order dated 17.10.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 17928 of 2014.
Heard Sri Dhrub Narayan, Sr. Counsel for the appellant and Sri Prabhat Kumar, learned counsel for the State.
The grievance of the petitioner ventilated in the writ
Patna High Court LPA No.1575 of 2014 dt.13-02-2015
2/2
petition was that he filed a tender for a particular work in accordance with law but the tender was rejected. The learned Single Judge took note of the fact that the tender of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that it was not accompanied by an affidavit. The plea of the petitioner was that according to the Circular issued by the Government on 31.1.2008, it was not necessary to file an affidavit at all. However, that contention was not accepted and the writ petition was dismissed.
For the first time, in the Letters Patent Appeal, the learned Sr. Counsel pleaded that the affidavit has, in fact been filed by the petitioner. A copy of the same is enclosed with I A No. 9012 of 2014. We are not inclined to accept that contention. It is evident from the statement in the writ petition that the ground of rejection of his tender i.e. non-filing of the affidavit, was known to him. If in fact he filed it, he would have mentioned the same in the writ petition. Obviously, the present plea is an after-thought. We do not find any basis to interfere in the order under appeal, passed by the learned Single Judge.
This Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. Interlocutory Applications shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(L. Narasimha Reddy,CJ)
(Shivaji Pandey, J)
mrl
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Letters Patent Appeal should be allowed on the ground that an affidavit was filed by the petitioner, despite it not being mentioned in the writ petition.
Uma Kant Tiwary
State of Bihar
Chief Justice
Shivaji Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
