Hemant Gupta, J.

1. The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court on 8th of September, 2016 in C.W.J.C. No. 14165 of 2016 whereby, the writ application seeking quashing of the order dated 23rd of April, 2016 whereby, the contract of food articles for supply in jail was recalled and it was decided to call for the fresh tender, was dismissed.

2. A tender was invited on 27th of January, 2016 by the Superintendent, Shahid Khudiram Bose Central Jail, Muzaffarpur for supply of general food and other miscellaneous articles. The appellant submitted his tender including certificate of registration under the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The tender of the appellant in respect of some items was accepted and the appellant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 44,65,000/- i.e. 10 per cent of the total estimated amount for the Financial Year 2016-17 as earnest money in the form of Bank Guarantee. The appellant deposited the said amount but the tender was cancelled on 23rd of April, 2016 when even after request of the appellant for grant of time to produce the licence from Food Safety and Standard Authority was not accepted.

3. The contention of the appellant is that he had assured the respondents that he would submit such licence before 28th of April, 2016 but even before that date, the decision to invite fresh tender was taken.

4. The learned Single Bench dismissed the writ application on the ground that the appellant has not immediately invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court and has allowed the fresh tender notice to be issued and finalized. Therefore, there is no reason to entertain the writ application filed by the appellant.

5. Before this Court learned counsel for the appellant contended that the decision to cancel the contract and to issue fresh tender is arbitrary and without any reason and, thus, this Court in the writ application should not allow such arbitrary action to stand and consequently allow the appellant to complete the contract awarded to it at an early stage.

6. A perusal of the show-cause issued to the appellant on 15th of April, 2016 shows that the appellant was informed that licence has not been produced from Food Safety and Standard Authority which is mandatory in respect of dealers who have an annual production of more than twelve lakhs rupees (condition number 6). Such condition is that the dealers have to produce licence and registration under the Act. Admittedly, the appellant has not produced such licence which was a condition in the notice notifying the tender when it submitted tender and did not supply, even when called upon to produce the same.

7. Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant referred to the judgments in the case reported as M/s. Master Marine Services Pvt. Ltd., v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson Pvt. Ltd. and another, AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2299, Harbanslal Sahnia and another v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and others, (2003) 2 SCC 107, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and others v. Super Highway Services and another, (2010) 3 SCC 321, Modern Steel Industries v. State of U.P. and others, (2001) 10 SCC 491, Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, (1998) 8 SCC 1, National Sample Survey Organisation and another v. Champa Properties Limited and another, (2009) 14 SCC 451, Union of India and others v. Tantia Construction Private Limited, (2011) 5 SCC 697 and ABL International Ltd. and another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and others, (2004) 3 SCC 553 to contend that in exercise of the writ jurisdiction, the Court can decide even disputed questions of fact to annul the arbitrary action of the State Government.

8. The reading of the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant lead to the conclusion that the powers of the Writ Court are plenary in nature and in exercise of such power, the Court can embark an in