1. Heard Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Satyabir Bharti, the learned counsel for the respondents/Railways.

2. A peculiar prayer has been made in the writ petition.

3. In a tender floated by the respondents/Railways in 2018, the contract was awarded to the writ petitioner in the year 2019. Respondent No. 6 had also participated in the bid/tender. However, only the petitioner was chosen as the successful candidate, who was awarded the contract.

4. This writ petition has been filed in the year 2023, seeking a direction to the respondents/Railways to take action against respondent No. 6 or at least respond to the representations filed by him by issuing an order of debarment of respondent No. 6 for having filed forged and fabricated documents regarding his eligibility for participating in the tender.

5. We fail to understand as to how it would be the look-out of the writ petitioner for him to seek such relief.

6. For the reason of respondent No. 6 having filed forged and fabricated certificates regarding his eligibility, the award was not given to him. It was for the respondents/Railways to have taken a decision with respect to taking any action against respondent No. 6. Any action against respondent No. 6 cannot be initiated at the instance of the petitioner.

7. It is a misconceived writ petition and we are of the considered opinion that cost should be imposed on the petitioner.

8. We, thus, impose a cost of Rs. 1,000/- on the petitioner, to be deposited with the Bihar State Legal Services Authority within a period of four weeks from today.

9. The writ petition stands dismissed.

10. Interlocutory application (s), if any, also stands disposed off.