Order This appeal has been filed alongwith an application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 3280 of 2008) since the appeal is time barred by 155 days. 2. Explaining the delay, it was submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation as the appellant was suffering from Jaundice, in support of which a medical certificate has also been annexed. 3. Considering the illness of the appellant due to which the delay occurred in filing of the appeal, we thought it just and appropriate to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 4. The delay in filing the appeal, therefore, is condoned and accordingly the application (I.A. No. 3280 of 2008) is allowed. 5. Since the delay in filing the appeal has been condoned, we permitted the appellant to address us on the merit of the appeal and on hearing the same in the light of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we have noticed that the appeal itself has no substance which would be reflected from the position recorded hereinafter. 6. The appellant, who was the petitioner before the learned Single Judge, had filed the writ petition for a direction to the respondents to issue fresh tender, inviting supply of foodgrains in the Scheduled Tribe residential schools falling within the district of Lohardaga. The appellant's plea was that short term tender notice ought not to have been issued for the purchase of foodgrains which included vegetables and other materials of perishable nature. The learned Single Judge after considering the plea of the petitioner-appellant was pleased to reject the writ petition, against which this appeal has been filed. 7. Reiterating the arguments that were advanced before the learned Single Judge, it was submitted that the petitioner-appellant has been deprived of his right to supply the articles and short term tender should not have been invited since the persons who were already making supply in pursuance to the tender already granted in their favour, could avail the chance of supplying for a longer period. 8. The counsel, however, could not point out any Rule or any Condition in the tender notice which envisaged the duration of the supply of articles although he had duly participated in the tender process which was invited for supply of the foodgrains as also vegetables and other articles. 9. 8. The counsel, however, could not point out any Rule or any Condition in the tender notice which envisaged the duration of the supply of articles although he had duly participated in the tender process which was invited for supply of the foodgrains as also vegetables and other articles. 9. The counsel appearing for the respondent-State submitted that when the petitioner-appellant was not declared a successful bidder as he had failed to deposit security money and also failed to furnish the required certificate, which was necessary in view of the terms and conditions of the tender, he filed a writ petition before the Single Bench. 10. Countering the submission of the counsel for the respondents, it was still further submitted by the appellant's counsel that even though the petitioner was not held to be a successful bidder, his right to challenge the tender notice cannot be taken away as he had raised an issue before the learned Single Judge that the tender ought not to have been invited for a short term period. 11. This, in our view, is not a legal and justifiable challenge since the respondents had invited tender for short term supply of foodgrains, which included vegetables and other items, which were of perishable nature. 12. In that view of the matter, if the short term tender was invited, obviously it can be inferred that it was done to ensure the supply of a good quality product as also to keep a check on the same so that if the supply is of a sub standard quality, the person enjoying the benefit of tender could be restrained from supplying the articles. The reason for inviting tender including a condition to supply on a short term basis, therefore, appears to be reasonable and does not smack of mala fide in any manner so as to call for interference of the Court. Besides this, the counsel for the appellant has missed that in absence of any Rule to the effect that the tender notice should not have been invited for supply of articles for a short duration, cannot be permitted to assail the same, merely if the same is not to his advantage, specially when he had duly participated in the tender process without raising any objection in regard to the terms and conditions of the tender aria-was declared unsuccessful. 13. 13. Hence, for the reasons recorded hereinbefore, we find no substance in this appeal. Consequently, it is dismissed at the admission stage itself.