Judgment 1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. We have also perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. Mr. Kapoor has vehemently argued that the findings recorded by the Trial Court that the writ petitioners have misrepresented the facts are not supported either by the pleadings or by the documents on record. We have perused the entire pleadings as placed before us. We have also perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Challenging the conduct of the railway authorities in issuing a second tender notice covering the subject-matter of an earlier notice, the writ petitioners, being the appellants herein, filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. It was claimed by the writ petitioners that the first petitioner had already been awarded the work and there was no room for the second tender process to be initiated. 4. By a notice inviting tender dated 2nd February, 2007 the railways invited offers from eligible participants to operate two parcel vans on the Kanchenjungha Express, running between Guwahati and Sealdah. By a letter dated 9th April, 2007, the writ petitioners' bid was accepted by the railway authorities. No formal contract was executed between the railways and the writ petitioners. 5. The case of the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge was that despite the writ petitioners having been recognized to have bid the best for the first of the two parcel vans to be added in the Kanchenjungha Express there was a subsequent notice that appeared in the newspaper on 27th July, 2007, inviting offers for another parcel van on the same train. From the order of the learned Single Judge it is noticed that at the time of final hearing of the writ petition it was submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners that they should not be affected by the subsequent notice, since their bid had already been accepted by the railway authorities in April, 2007. Initially, upon the writ petition being filed, an order of stay of operation of the tender notification issued on 27th July, 2007 was passed by the Trial Court on 5th November, 2007. Such order was subsequently extended and directions were given for filing affidavits. Initially, upon the writ petition being filed, an order of stay of operation of the tender notification issued on 27th July, 2007 was passed by the Trial Court on 5th November, 2007. Such order was subsequently extended and directions were given for filing affidavits. Meanwhile, an application was filed by one Esquire Express and Courier Services, seeking to be added as party to the writ proceedings, which was allowed and consequently, the applicant was added as 5th respondent to the writ petition. On 28th February, 2008, an order was made on the writ petition, upon a prayer being made on behalf of the railways that an additional parcel van is necessary to be run on the said train. The said order dated 28th February, 2008 permitted an additional parcel van to be temporarily operated on the said train, but it stipulated that only the writ petitioner No.1, i.e. Shree Durga TPT India Movers, would be entitled to operate the same. By virtue of the said order the writ petitioner No.1 was operating the additional parcel van on Kanchenjungha Express. 6. Upon filing of affidavits before the learned Single Judge, it transpired from the affidavit filed on behalf of the railways that the minutes of the meeting of the tender committee deliberating upon applications being received for the two additional parcel vans, for which the notice inviting tender was issued on 2nd February, 2007, were appended thereto. From the said minutes it appeared that the writ petitioner had bid the highest and the added respondent had bid slightly lower and, accordingly, it was decided that the fourth parcel van (in addition to the three already operating) would be run by the writ petitioner No.1 and the fifth parcel van on the train would be run by the added respondent. The learned Single Judge also took notice of a footnote reference appearing in the said minutes in respect of an operational problem in two additional parcel vans being added to the existing fourteen passenger coaches and three parcel vans on the train. In the affidavit used by the railways before the learned Single Judge it was further disclosed that by a notification dated 27th July, 2007, the original tender notice of 2nd February, 2007 was cancelled. Additionally, the second tender notification dated 27th July, 2007 was published. In the affidavit used by the railways before the learned Single Judge it was further disclosed that by a notification dated 27th July, 2007, the original tender notice of 2nd February, 2007 was cancelled. Additionally, the second tender notification dated 27th July, 2007 was published. The learned Single Judge took note of I the two documents referred to in the railways' affidavit as well as certain averments, which remain uncontroverted. At paragraph 4(n) of the railways' affidavit it was specifically averred that on 21st August, 2007, the writ petitioners requested the concerned railway authorities to award a lease for a period of one month, beginning August 25, 2007 to operate an additional parcel van on the train. At the following sub-paragraph, there was a reference to a meeting having been held on 30th August, 2007, between the concerned railway authorities and the writ petitioner No.2. In the railways' affidavit it was also averred that the writ petitioner No.1 was permitted to operate the additional parcel van on the said train on a temporary basis for a period of thirty days beginning 1st September, 2007. This averment was supported by the two documents annexed to the railways' affidavit. The learned Single Judge also took note of the affidavit-in-reply used by the writ petitioners to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the railways. Paragraph 11 of the said affidavit dealt with paragraph 4(n) of the railways' affidavit. Referring to the statements made by the writ petitioners in paragraph 11 of their affidavit-in-reply, the learned Single Judge observed that the writ petitioners had completely glossed over the material statements contained in paragraph 4(n) of the railways' affidavit and there was no reference regarding two documents annexed to the railways' affidavit. One line from paragraph 12 of the affidavit in reply filed by the writ petitioners was quoted by the learned Single Judge, which reads as follows: "12. With respect to the statements and/or allegations contained in paragraphs 4(o) to 4(r) of the said affidavit, I state and submit that after the cancellation of the said tender and during the pendency of the instant writ petition the petitioner was allotted the work on day-to-day basis. ..." 7. The learned Single Judge thereafter went on to observe as follows: "There is more that such sentence conceals than it reveals. The petition was filed on November 1, 2007. ..." 7. The learned Single Judge thereafter went on to observe as follows: "There is more that such sentence conceals than it reveals. The petition was filed on November 1, 2007. There is a categorical assertion in the railways' affidavit that in August, 2007 the first petitioner had applied to the railways, under the notification subsequently impugned in the petition, and had obtained a benefit upon the railways permitting the petitioners to run a parcel van on the train for a period of a month beginning September 1, 2007. Strictly speaking, there is an element of dishonesty in the sentence quoted from the petitioners' reply. The petitioners were permitted to operate the parcel van prior to the institution of the petition and not during the pendency of the petition as appears to be the substance of the sentence. That the petitioners subsequently operated the parcel van on a temporary basis, probably on the strength of the order of February 28, 2007 is an entirely different matter altogether. It would appear from the uncontroverted statements in the railways' affidavit and Annexure R-9 and R-10 thereto, that when the petitioners came to Court challenging the notification of July 27, 2007 the petitioners did not disclose all relevant facts and suppressed the fact that the petitioners had obtained a benefit under the' notification that the petitioners had assailed. It is true that the railways were represented in Court on November 5,2007, but it is conceivable that all the material could not be immediately collected to be presented before the Vacation Bench. Further, it was a monumental suppression of a material fact that disentitled the petitioners from maintaining the challenge to the impugned notification." 8. We are of the opinion that non-disclosure of the facts as narrated in paragraph 4(n) of the railway's affidavit by the writ petitioners cannot be said to be innocence. As soon as the writ petitioners/appellants would accept participation in the second tender process the cancellation of the earlier tender process could not possibly be challenged. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners had nothing to gain by non-disclosure of participation in the second tender. 9. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed by treating the same as on day's list. The application for stay is also dismissed. 10. Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Counsel for the parties. 9. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed by treating the same as on day's list. The application for stay is also dismissed. 10. Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Counsel for the parties. Surinder Singh Nijjar, CJ. & Biswanath Somadder, J.: Appeal dismissed.