Judgment 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 4 September, 2001 on C.W.J.C.No. 6450 of 2001: M/s. Prem Printing Press V/s. Bihar State Text Book Publishing Corporation Ltd. & Ors., [ 2001 (4) PLJR 311 ] 2. The Court has read the order on the writ petition and heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-appellant. 3. Learned counsel submitted that he accepts the reality as of date that the clock cannot be put back. Thus, the relief which may had been prayed for in the petition, in effect, that the Court issue a writ of certiorari for quashing the letter of intent or a restraint on an award of the contract, cannot be granted nor is the appellant pressing for that relief. 4. The contention is confined not so much on the judgment but the fact that there are remarks on the record of the Bihar State Text Book Publishing Corporation Ltd. giving an impression, in effect, that any document submitted by the petitioner during the process when the bids were being considered were fake or forged. These remarks have been noticed by learned Judge in paragraphs 16 and 20 as being on the record of the respondent Corporation. 5. The contetion is that these remarks would in future virtually amount to blacklist the petitioner appellant and perhaps may affect its business should they be capitalised against it. The prayer is that the petitioner appellant has had no adequate opportunity granted by the Corporation before these remarks were set on record. 6. In so far. as the judgment impugned is concerned, learned Judge himself has been very cautious so as to not utilise the phraseology which may have been on the record of the Corporation. To that extent, the judgment on the writ petition itself has diluted the remarks. 7. The occasion to make the remarks arose when the respondent Corporation was making inquiries on the guarantees or the counter guarantee which may have been submitted on the contract which they could have awarded should the petitioner have been selected for the award of the contract: 8. There was an advertisement and the petitioner responded by a bid. One basic fact needs to be kept in mind that the bid which the petitioner made was only in furtherance of an invitation to make an offer. The offer had yet to be accepted. There was an advertisement and the petitioner responded by a bid. One basic fact needs to be kept in mind that the bid which the petitioner made was only in furtherance of an invitation to make an offer. The offer had yet to be accepted. The inquiries were made in the process of considering acceptance. The queston then arose of the satisfaction of the party which was to be granted the contract. To grant a contract so as to be satisfied or have the confidence that the contract be awarded to a particular party, in the present case the petitioner, the remarks were recorded whatever they way be. The petitioner was not awarded the contract. This circumstance is accepted. But, the petitioner submits that it is aggrieved by the remarks. 9. At the out set, the Court would like to place on record that it has carefully read the judgment and it has no reason to differ with it and subscribe to every word on it. Thus, in so far as the appeal filed for the purpose to impugn the judgment is concerned, to that extent, it fails. 10. In so far as the petitioners submission is concerned that before placing the remarks on the record of the Corporation on the issue that the latter may not have been satisfied on the inquiries which were made and remarks were made, the petitioner should be given an opportunity to represent before the Corporation. 11. The petitioners liberty to represent will always be there. But the petitioner contends that its representation ought to be considered with a reasoned order. In this context the circumstances will need to be seen as a whole. Paragraphs 17, 20 and 24 of the judgment under appeal refers to a pending investigation upon a First Information Report and the possibility of a proceeding for prosecution, unless a final report is filed. Would it be fair for this Court direct that reasons be recorded on the petitioners representation. After all if there be a prosecution and a trial, the petitioner would be advised to remain silent, a posture the petitioner could take. But, could the person filing the FIR be requested to give reasons as a consequence of a civil proceeding as to why he filed the FIR. After all if there be a prosecution and a trial, the petitioner would be advised to remain silent, a posture the petitioner could take. But, could the person filing the FIR be requested to give reasons as a consequence of a civil proceeding as to why he filed the FIR. The petitioner appellant may present its representation but, the respondents should have as much liberty to say or not to say anything on it so as not to prejudice their case as in the FIR or the trial in case a chargesheet is filed. 12. Dismissed.