Judgment 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed to impugn the order dated 23 January, 2002 on C.W.J.C. No. 566 of 2002 : M/s A.K. Builders & Transporters V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors. 2. Arguments on the present Letters Patent Appeal took the best part of the day. The submissions as made are thus noticed. Some of the submissions were from the record and yet some of the submissions were not on record. 3. The appellant-petitioner did not find itself as selected for a contract advertised by the State of Bihar by a public notice. The area in the sector of the contract relates to the making of public roads under the Prime Ministers Gramin Sadak Yojna. The details are mentioned in a public notice which was published in the newspapers dated 20 September, 2001 (annexure 1). Clearly, this notice which invited tenders is an invitation from prospective contractors as an invitation to make an offer. 4. The submission on the writ petition, not on records, is that ultimately three persons were shortlisted as having made offers; that the offers, on price, were similar, and one of them is the appellant- petitioner, the other, respondent no. 7 (M/s Dinesh Upadhyay) and another. Then, there were submissions, to the effect, that the State of Bihar particularly its department of Rural Engineering Organisation and Panchayat Raj, have acted like "pious cows" and have awarded the contract to its blue eyed boy" and that the Secretary of the department has been instrumental in this. These submissions are not on record nor were the persons against whom allegations have been addressed made party respondents in their personal capacity. 5. Then, it was contended that the petitioner seeks a writ, order, or direction from the High Court for the purpose of quashing an agreement so made for execution of works by Rural Engineering Organisation, Works Division-Bhabhua under the Prime Ministers Gram Sadak Yojna, Patchage No. BR-05-02 dated 22 December, 2001. This is in reference to an agreement which has been entered by the State of Bihar with respondent no. 7 (M/s Dinesh Upadhyay). It is on record that the petitioner in no uncertain terms desires that the Court declares the agreement between the State of Bihar and respondent no. 7 who has been awarded the contract, as illegal and quash the agreement. 7 (M/s Dinesh Upadhyay). It is on record that the petitioner in no uncertain terms desires that the Court declares the agreement between the State of Bihar and respondent no. 7 who has been awarded the contract, as illegal and quash the agreement. The writ sought for quashing could only be by a certiorari and the restraint to the State of Bihar to forebear in assigning the contract to respondent no. 7, by mandamus. 6. The assignment of the contract was made on 22 December, 2001. The contention of the petitioner is that in accordance with the terms of selection on the basis of which the tenders were to be considered, the respondent no. 7 had submitted papers which were false, fabricated and forged. Thus, respondents were obliged not to award the contract as they have done so. It is further contended that the petitioner is possessed of sufficient qualifications and materials and machines for the execution of the contract and that his qualifications and credentials are far superior than that of respondent no. 7. 7. The submissions were the same as before the learned Judge who had declined to interfere on the writ petition. These submissions have been noticed in the order as also the cases which have been cited. The same cases were cited before this Court also, with an addition of another case which the Court will consider subsequently, as the arguments advanced before the Court have been rather lengthy. The arguments are noticed first. 8. The submissions mainly were thrust in the style that upon the writ petition having been filed the learned Judge neither had any jurisdiction nor option but was obliged to issue a notice on the petition. This has been basically the theme of the argument throughout on the Letters Patent Appeal also. The Court has reservations that a citizen may file a writ petition under the High Courts prerogative writ jurisdiction which is an extraordinary remedy and insist that as of right he is entitled to a writ. This perhaps would be a sad day. It is a settled principle that the prerogative writ jurisdiction of the High Court is a discretionary remedy on which the High Court may interfere upon any arbitrary decision of the State or any authority which partakes the nature of a State. This perhaps would be a sad day. It is a settled principle that the prerogative writ jurisdiction of the High Court is a discretionary remedy on which the High Court may interfere upon any arbitrary decision of the State or any authority which partakes the nature of a State. The insistence of any citizen that this is a petition of right perhaps may not be a conducive nor a correct argument. A discretionary remedy always remains so as long as the law provides a citizen a redress in other forums also. The discretion to issue a writ upon a petition presented is a matter which will need to be examined but a writ may not be had for the askance. This part of the argument indeed was unfortunate. 9. The main thrust on the submission was that respondent no. 7 who has been selected and awarded the contract, on which an agreement was signed on 22 December, 2001, has presented documents which in no uncertain terms are fabricated, forged and false. It is strenuously repeated that in the circumstances the Hon ble Judge was left with no option but to issue a writ and call upon the State and the respondents to reply to the writ petition. 10. The facts as borne from the record. The agreement was signed on 22 December, 2001. The petitioner was putting the State under a notice by letter dated 29 November, 2001 (annexure 2). This was followed by another letter dated 14.12.2001 (annexure 3).Then, on 21 December, 2001 the petitioner had a legal notice served upon the Secretary, Rural Engineering Organisation and Panchayati Raj, Bihar, Patna, with a copy endorsed to the Engineer-in-Chief, the Special Secretary, the Chief Engineer, the Superintending Engineer and the Executive Engineer. Now a lawyer on behalf of the petitioner was cautioning the State and its officers that they were acting on false and fabricated documents and they ought to, in effect, resist from granting a contract to respondent no. 7. The Court is not repeating the contents of the notice as these are on record. Suffice it to say that the State was being put on a notice that respondent no. 7 does not fulfil the qualifications and the documents which he has presented are false and fabricated. 7. The Court is not repeating the contents of the notice as these are on record. Suffice it to say that the State was being put on a notice that respondent no. 7 does not fulfil the qualifications and the documents which he has presented are false and fabricated. In no uncertain terms counsel for the petitioner in this notice declares that the tender should be decided in favour of his client. The notice is rather unusual because in the matter relating to award of a contract upon a public advertisement, lawyers normally have no place. The advertisement itself is only an invitation to make an offer. The offers which are considered are then for acceptance. Offers, acceptance and consideration, all are matters as a prelude to a contract. Breach comes later and specific performance yet later. 11. In so far as the present case is concerned, the allegations border on criminality. If the petitioner was so assured that the documents which the respondent no. 7 had presented were indeed forged, fabricated and false, then, clearly he was making an allegation under Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. To make an allegation against any person and particularly allegations which are offences under the Penal Code, due responsibility has to be taken by the person who makes the allegations and the onus to prove them is on him who makes it. If the petitioner was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that his allegations hold, then either a First Information Report should have been filed failing which a complaint before a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction. Thereafter, the petitioner should have placed his First Information Report and the complaint before the respondents who were examining the contract and perhaps that would have set an inquiry in motion. The exercise which the petitioner entered into was basically a no-holds-barred situation that he has also made an offer on the tender and the State has no choice except to award the contract to him and no other. The petitioner forgets that it is his contention that there were three with similar offers. A selection had to be made in any case. 12. The Court is not going into the question as to the qualifications of any person or that the petitioner was possessed of superior qualifications, machines and materials to execute the contract. The petitioner forgets that it is his contention that there were three with similar offers. A selection had to be made in any case. 12. The Court is not going into the question as to the qualifications of any person or that the petitioner was possessed of superior qualifications, machines and materials to execute the contract. This is a matter for the satisfaction of the State as the vendor. In the context of the petition the possibility cannot be ruled out that a person who has to execute an engineering contract may not own the machines but may possess so under a leasing contract. But, this aspect is not for consideration by the High Court. 13. Of the three cases cited two have been noticed by learned Judge. These two were cited again. It is not necessary for the Court to go into the details but as learned counsel for the petitioner had made a reference to the Court it would only be fair that the contention along with the cases placed, be noticed. 14. The case in re. West Bengal Electricity Board V/s. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. and Ors. A.I.R. 2001 SCW 322 is not on the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is about an assignment of a contract, on the principle that once a public tender has been published and bidders have made bids on the contract, the authority which considers the contract to select the contractor must not be seen to be making changes in the item rates after the tenders have been opened. Simply put, this case is on the proposition that rules of game must not be changed after the game has begun. This case has no application. 15. In the matter of Shri Harminder Singh Arora V/s. Union of India and Ors. A.I.R. 1986 SC 1527 the proposition was no different. The content of the public contract was about receiving tenders for the supply of fresh milk. The authority which was to consider the contract began the exercise in respect of pasteurised milk and not fresh milk. In the circumstances the court interfered. The principles of this case do not apply either. 16. Then, there was a case M/s Om Metals & Minerals Ltd. V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors., 2002 (1) P.L.J.R. 126 not cited before learned Judge who made an order on the petition but before this Court. In the circumstances the court interfered. The principles of this case do not apply either. 16. Then, there was a case M/s Om Metals & Minerals Ltd. V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors., 2002 (1) P.L.J.R. 126 not cited before learned Judge who made an order on the petition but before this Court. This case was about a black-listed contractor. The contention was that its estab- lishment ought not to have been ignored unless the person who had been awarded the contract had the opportunity of meet- ing the allegations. On the petition the court did not interfere. The petition was dismissed and the principles of this case do not apply either. 17. In the circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the learned Judge has not committed any error in being obliged to issue a writ on the petition for which the petitioner strenuously contended that he has a right to receive a writ on the presentation of a petition. The same arguments were addressed before this Court and sufficiently noticed. 18. If the petitioner feels that the allegations which he has against respondent, who has been awarded the contract, hold then nothing stops him from instituting an F.I.R. or a complaint under the law as provided. Such allegations cannot be flung as easily, they may be reported if of a criminal nature. The petitioner is not prepared to come forward with courage to lodge a F.I.R. or a complaint. 19. Dismissed.