JUDGMENT : 1. 12.10.1998 - The present writ petition is at the instance of one Sarfaraz Alam seeking reliefs in the following manner: "The petitioner, therefore, prays that Your Lordships would to graciously pleased to admit this written petition, call for the records from the opp. parties and after hearing the parties allow the same with cost and issue a writ/ writs in nature of certiorari/mandamus quashing Annexure-1 and the award of tender in favour of opp. party No. 3 and commanding the opp. parties to award the tender in question in favour of the petitioner." 2. Both the S.E. Railways as well as opposite party No. 3 are contesting this proceeding. It is stated in the writ petition that the dispute arose with regard to tender for cycle-stand at the Railway Station, Rourkela. The petitioner alleges that the offer given by him was much higher he having quoted Rs. 4,80,000.00 per year whereas opposite party No. 3 who is alleged to be successful had quoted only Rs. 2,73,000.00 per year. Although the petitioner's bid was higher, that was not accepted and the petitioner was allowed to participate in the auction for certain technical aspects like depositing the required money with wrong official. A preliminary objection is taken by opposite party No. 3 as to maintainability of this writ petition by referring to a decision reported in Brij Bhal Singh Gautam Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, where a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court found that the station where the contract was to be performed fell within jurisdiction of that High Court and the challenge to the award of contract was made on the ground of alleged illegality. There was neither cause of action, nor part of cause of action arose within jurisdiction of the High Court in question. It was held that illegality, if any, in award of contract, cannot be said to have been indulged in at place where contract was to be performed. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court tried to distinguish an earlier decision of the Apex Court Court reported in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem. The Apex Court in the said decision held "Jurisdiction of Court - More than one Court having jurisdiction - Contract to vest jurisdiction in one of them - Not against public policy". A.P. Agencies, Salem. The Apex Court in the said decision held "Jurisdiction of Court - More than one Court having jurisdiction - Contract to vest jurisdiction in one of them - Not against public policy". Section 20(c) has been considered and it was held "Suit on contract - Breach of contract - Jurisdiction of Court - It can be filed at place where it was made- Place of performance also is part of cause of action- Suit can be filed there also." 3. In this case, as facts reveal, the Divisional Office of the S.E.Railway is at Calcutta. The ministerial work was performed at Calcutta whereas the contract has to be performed at Rourkela which is well within the jurisdiction of this Court. The facts also reveal that the contract has to be performed at Rourkela and a part of cause of action arises there. A cause of action being a bundle of facts and a part of the cause of action having arisen at Rourkela, cannot be lost sight of. With great respect, we cannot agree with the observation of the Allahabad High Court to differ from the view of the Apex Court. The view of the Apex Court is binding on us and the facts as referred to therein are same and similar to that in the present case. We are of the clear view that the ratio of the decision A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem, is applicable to this case and the preliminary objection as to jurisdiction of the Court is overruled. 3. Secondly, we find that on a mere technical ground as to deposit of the required amount the higher bid of the petitioner has not been accepted. It is clearly against the public policy as there will be loss of State revenue. As a Court of equity, we deem it proper and prudent to quash the alleged concluded contract in favour of opposite party No. 3 and issue appropriate writ commanding the S.E.Railway authorities to call for fresh tender giving opportunity to opposite party No. 3 also to participate in the auction after complying with all the requirements as law demands. The exercise should be complete within three months. It is submitted that for the fight between the petitioner and opposite party No. 3, a third party is taking the advantage by running the cycle-stand in question. The exercise should be complete within three months. It is submitted that for the fight between the petitioner and opposite party No. 3, a third party is taking the advantage by running the cycle-stand in question. We record the submission on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner will not pursue any litigation with regard to the present matter either in Civil Court or any other forum and the petitioner undertakes to take prompt steps to withdraw the cases pending, if any. An affidavit filed in this regard is kept on record. 4. With the above observation and direction we dispose of the writ application. Issue writ accordingly. We make it clear that in case opposite party No. 3 succeeds in the fresh auction, the amount already deposited by him should be taken into account. He may make an application for consideration, in case his bid is not accepted and the amount has to be refunded, for payment on reasonable interest thereon as the situation may demand.