Ravi S.Dhavan, J.

1. Delay condoned.

2. This letters patent appeal has been filed ostensibly on behalf of the State of Bihar. The court mentions ostensibly because this aspect may ultimately have a bearing on some other circumstances which ought not to have been raised by the appellants. The issues are to be seen as arising out of the judgment which is challenged in this letters patent appeal. The judgment is dated 14 January 2004. It was rendered on a writ petition being CWJC No. 13914 of 2003: P.E.C. Limited vs. State of Bihar & Ors.

3. Another circumstance emerged subsequently in the appeal. It is contended in this appeal that the State of Bihar was not aware as to the identity of the highest bidder, the petitioner, which filed the writ petition. This party is known as P.E.C. Ltd., (Project and Equipments Corporation Limited); a Government of India undertaking. The issues, then, are with a public sector undertaking, a state in its own right. Its shares are held by the President of India. This was not an issue in the writ petition.

4. Issues prior to the filing of the writ petition, which led to the filing of it are about the assignment of a contract to a highest bidder i