JUDGMENT 1. These intra-court appeals arise out of the tender process initiated vide notice inviting tender dated 25.05.2008. Initially, Manav Rog Janch Kendra filed writ petition No. 3282/2209, claiming that the work order issued in its favour had been illegally cancelled by the respondents. After dismissal of the writ petition filed by Manav Rog Janch Kendra, later on a writ petition was filed by Satyam Diagnostic Center being Civil Writ Petition No. 4420/2010, which has been dismissed vide order dated 07.10.2010. 2. The tenders were invited for providing CT Scan Machine. Condition No. 6 of the notice inviting tender was that, "the rates should be inclusive of contrast". Manav Roag Janch Kendra submitted its offer in which it was mentioned that contrast be provided by the hospital for 20% free category patients and for all other categories, the contrasts will be provided by the patients. The work order issued on 12.02.2009 in favour of Manav Roag Janch Kendra was cancelled vide communication No. P(15)dated 09.04.2009 on the ground that rates were called along with the contrasts and its rates were approved on the ground of being less under the wrong impression that the rates quoted were inclusive of contrasts whereas it was not so. It was also mentioned that for re-assessment, Technical Committee had been constituted but they were not able to reach at any conclusion with respect to the rates and the contrasts to be applied as contrast is of different quality and in different kinds of patients, quantity of contrasts to be imparted is different, it was not possible to compute the quantity of contrasts to be given to a particular patient. As such, no decision could be taken on the tender, consequently, the communication dated 12.02.2009 issuing the work order, had been cancelled. Action of cancellation of work order was assailed by way of filing Civil Writ Petition No. 3282/2009 before the Single Bench and the same was dismissed vide under dated 17.04.2009. 3. It is pertinent to mention here that before filing of the writ petition No. 2240/2010 by Satyam Diagnostic Center, in special Appeal No. 491/2009 which arise out of Civil Writ Petition No. 3282/2009, an application was filed for impleadment, which was rejected since the applicant was not party to original case. The order was passed on 17.08.2009. Thereafter, the writ petition was preferred by Satyam Diagnostic Center on 19.02.2010. The order was passed on 17.08.2009. Thereafter, the writ petition was preferred by Satyam Diagnostic Center on 19.02.2010. The said writ petition has been dismissed on the ground of delay and latches on the part of Satyam Diagnostic Center by the Single Judge by order dated 07.05.2010. 4. The stand of the respondents is that it was necessary to include the contrast rates, which was not done. It was found that the tender of Manav Rog Janch Kendra was not as per the condition No.6. Wrongly the rates were approved and work order was issued. It is also submitted that meeting of the Technical Committee was held to find out what may be the approximate price of the contrasts. The Technical Committee, in its report, has found that it was not possible to be calculated as various types of contrasts are available of different rates, how much quantity of contrast is to be given to which patient, is not possible to be estimated. As such, in view of the report of the Technical Committee, it was difficult to take decision on the tenders and it was decided to cancel the process. 5. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petitions, these intra-court appeals appeals have been preferred. 6. Shri Kuldeep Mathur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Manav Rog Janch Kendra submitted that the offer of the lowest bidder Manav Rog Janch Kendra has been illegally cancelled as per the report of the Technical Committee, it was not possible to evaluate the price of contrasts to be administered to a particular patient. Consequently, the offer made by the lowest bidder could not have been cancelled for not mentioning the contrast rates. In the column, which was specified for quoting the rates, the rate of CT Brain Scan with contrast had been mentioned by Manav Janch Kendra. The rejection of the work order was thus illegal and the same deserves to be restored. 7. Shri Ranjeet Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Satyam Diagnostic Center, has submitted that the writ petition has wrongly been dismissed by the Single Bench on the ground of delay and latches. As a matter of fact, an effort was made by Satyam Diagnostic Center to be impleaded in the pending Special Appeal No. 491/2009, which arose out of Writ Petition No. 3282/2009. As a matter of fact, an effort was made by Satyam Diagnostic Center to be impleaded in the pending Special Appeal No. 491/2009, which arose out of Writ Petition No. 3282/2009. The contract ought to have been granted to Satyam Diagnostic Center as its bid was the second lowest and was inclusive of rates of contrast. 8. Shri R.L. Jangid, learned Addl. Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State, submitted that condition No. 6 has been found by the Technical Committee to be unworkable. The offers were invited by inclusion of the rates of contrasts, whereas in the column specified for rates, only one item indicated the rates to be along with contrast, i.e. CT Scan Brain with contrast. For other patients also, contrast may be necessary and since quality and quantity of contrast differs, it was not possible to evaluate the value of the contrasts to be administered. Manav Rog Janch Kendra has sought to change the condition by fastening the liability upon the patients, therefore, on the basis of the report of the Technical Committee, decision was rightly taken to cancel the tender process. He has also submitted now there is no necessity of process of tender to be done as for purchase of much better CT Scan Machine, "Multi Slice C.T. Scan Machine (64 Slice)" order has been placed on 15.11.2010 with M/s. Erbis Engineering Co. Ltd., Puducherry for a sum of Rs. 3,72,50.000/-. The CT Scan Machine is awaited and these intra-court appeals have been rendered infructuous. 9. Firstly, we take up the submission whether the decision taken by the respondents of cancelling the entire process pursuant to notice inviting tender was proper. 10. The condition No.6, which was essential condition of the tender, was to the following effect: "Rate should be inclusive of contrast." 11. This condition itself was unworkable as there may be cases where contrast may not be necessary to be imparted to the patients. Thus, there was serious kind of flaw in the condition of notice inviting tender. The Technical Committee has rightly opined that the rate of contrast was not possible to be calculated as the contrast is of two types and are available at different rates. How much quantity of contrast Is to be given to which patient is not possible to be estimated. We have gone through the rates quoted by both the tenderers, who are before us. How much quantity of contrast Is to be given to which patient is not possible to be estimated. We have gone through the rates quoted by both the tenderers, who are before us. Their tenders do not confirm to the aforesaid requirement. Thus, the Technical Committee has rightly taken a decision in the facts of the Instant case to cancel the tender process itself. No illegality can be found In the action. The rates of Manav Rog Janch were quoted without contrast and liability of purchasing the contrast was sought to be fastened on the patients whereas the requirement was otherwise. Since the condition has been found to be unworkable, we do not find any fault in cancellation of tender of process. 12. With respect to the petition of Satyam Diagnostic Center, we find that Satyam Diagnostic Center was very well aware of the litigation. It has filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC, which had been rejected vide order dated 17.08.2009. The tender process was initiated in the year 2008. The work order was issued to Manav Rog Janch Kendra in February, 2009. It awaited for one year and thereafter the writ petition was filed. Thus, we find that besides the condition No.6 was unworkable, there was delay in filing of the writ petition by Satyam Diagnostic Center. thus, the Petition has rightly been dismissed. On merits also, we have found that action is appropriate. 13. However, the Government issued fresh order on 15.11.2010 for purchase of Multi Slice C.T. Scan Machine (64 Slice) in favour of M/s. Erbis Engineering Co. Ltd., Puducherry. Consequently, there is no necessity now to have machine from outside. Thus, we are not inclined to issue a direction to start the tender process afresh as CT Scar Machine is likely to be obtained very soon. However, in case it is not possible to install the machine within reasonable time, it would be open to the respondents to initiate the process of fresh tender but we leave it at their discretion. We do not issue any direction in this regard. No costs.Appeal Disposed of as Above. *******