1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter no. 280 dated 18.8.2008 issued by the respondent No.6, the Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), Ganga Rail Bridge, East Central Railway, Digha Ghat, Patna and also for quashing the re-tender notice for the said work "at the risk and cost of the petitioner". The later relief, as sought for by interlocutory application is as a consequence of re- tender issued during the pendency of the writ petition.

2. The petitioner is a Company, which undertakes large civil construction work including for the Railway. It appears that over river Ganga at Digha in Patna, a railway- cum-road bridge is proposed to be made under the supervision of East Central Railway. Accordingly fresh railway lines have to be laid to the bridge under construction. This railway track is to cross the Bailey Road, which runs East to West from Patna- Danapur. On the said track, a road over-bridge giving a clearance of 15 mtrs. over the railway track had to be made.

3. it appears that the railway first advertised for the construction of the same (road overbridge) and tender having been settled, the tenderer defaulted, as a consequence of such default, a fresh tender at the risk and cost of the earlier tenderer was issued being Tender No. 76/2006-07. The estimated cost of this road overbridge was Rs. 15.42 crores. Petitioner responded and was selected and ultimately letter of acceptance dated 12/13.2.2007 was issued in favour of the petitioner. Petitioners tender was accepted at Rs. 19,11,01,221.84. Work was to be completed within fifteen months from the date of issuance of letter of acceptance i.e. 11.5.2008. On 30.4.2007 an agreement was entered into between the East Central Railway and the petitioner for the aforesaid work.

4. The said overbridge had a Central Section over the railway track to be laid out. The Central Section consisted of bridge pier and span over it. The approach on both ends was to be of reinforced earth (RE), meaning thereby that the outer surface and rising approach road were to be made with reinforced concrete and were to be filled by Mud and road laid thereon.

5. This design had to be initially prepared by the petitioner and with certain test certificate and other certification got approved from the railway. The work on the approach road was to start only thereafter.

6. Petitioner-Company appointed the Central Road Research Institute, Delhi, as its consultant for designing the same. There is a lot correspondences between the two. Ultimately, the result whereof was that they recommended that each filled approach road should not rise above 7 Mtrs. The result was that the rest 8 Mtrs. of gain in height of the approach road on both the sides were to be made of complete cement casting which is known as "via duct". Railway got this examined by its own associates RITES and thus approved the plan. The consequence of this was that the tender, which was of Rs. 19 crores now increased, because of this additional work being constructed on both the approaches, to Rs. 36 crores. Originally via ducts of such large magnitude was not contemplated. In the meantime, petitioner had already taken up construction of the Central Section of casting design, whereof was also altered by the railway but the Central Section work progressed.

On being confronted with thischange of scope of work as also the nature of work, railway themselves thought it proper to tender for this part of additional work separately. This additional work of construction via duct work was then tendered afresh for an estimated cost of Rs. 24.50 crores separately. Thus, it would be seen that now the road over-bridge consisted of two parts, one of which the petitioner was executing and the other in between, of construction of via duct on both sides adjacent to main Central Section and span.

7. In response to this fresh tender for via duct, it is not in dispute, two tenders were received by the railway but they have not be