JUDGMENT : 1. A most interesting question, arising out of elementary principles of the law relating to contract, has arisen in this case. Under the common law, as embodied in the Indian Contract Act 1872, an offer may be revoked by the offerer at any time before the communication of the acceptance by the offeree. Communication of acceptance as against the offeree is complete as soon as it is put into a course of transmission to the person to whom it is made. This principle can be found in sections 4 & 5 of the Indian Contract Act 1872. 2. I would at the outset reject the contention of the railways that under the Indian Railway Standard Conditions of Contract the offer could not be revoked before hundred days, for the reason that it is absolutely contrary to the said provisions of the Indian Contract Act 1872 and hence invalid. 3. On or about 13th July 2015 the railways issued an offer to the writ petitioner to supply them with 1,43,016 Elastic Rail Clips after manufacturing them, confirming to the Item Code ERCMKV. According to the petitioner, by their letter dated 27th October 2015, sent also by an electronic mail on 28th October 2015 at 6.37 P.M. the offer was withdrawn. It is said on his behalf that it was so withdrawn because of some mistake in understanding the specification resulting in a lower rate quoted. There is absolutely no dispute that the letter was received by the railways on 4th November 2015. Meanwhile on rd November 2015 they accepted the offer. 4. Now the question is whether revocation of the offer by e-mail sent on 28th October 2015 was received by the railways ? If it was so received, then there could not be any acceptance on 3rd November, 2015 of an offer which was already revoked ? 5. I could have understood if the railways said that they did not receive the e-mail at all. Then in that case the court might have thought whether to send the parties to arbitration to resolve this disputed question of fact. The railways said in their 48 hours’ notice dated 11th March, 2016 that the e-mail ID was not the official ID of the railways. 6. Now, this is absolutely false and shows their mala fide. 7. Then in that case the court might have thought whether to send the parties to arbitration to resolve this disputed question of fact. The railways said in their 48 hours’ notice dated 11th March, 2016 that the e-mail ID was not the official ID of the railways. 6. Now, this is absolutely false and shows their mala fide. 7. It clearly appears from the communication at annexure P/6 of the petition made on 3rd November, 2015 that the railways communicated from the self-same ID. It is unfortunate that the railways have taken such a dishonest stand in the matter. I fully appreciate the force with which Ms. Banerjee tried to argue the matter on behalf of the railways by relying on the defence that the letter of revocation of offer was received after acceptance. But it is not possible for learned counsel appearing for the authorities to also take into account prosecuting or defending their cases in the dishonesty of his or her client. 8. For all those reasons, the subsequent letters dated 11th March, 2016 and 14th March, 2016 threatening to impose penalty on the writ petitioner are quashed as there was no legal relationship whatsoever between the petitioner and the railways from which this claim to indemnify the railways could possibly arise. 9. The Registrar, Original Side, High Court will forthwith return the sum of Rs.8,84,990/- together with interest accrued thereof after deduction of the Registrar’s charges by a bank draft in favour of the petitioner to be handed over to his advocate on record. This security was furnished by the petitioner, it may be recalled further to an interim order passed in this writ. The interim order is also vacated. 10. This writ application is allowed to the above extent. 11. Certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.