Adyaraj Krishna Jv v. The Union Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4064 of 2024 ====================================================== Adyaraj Krishna JV having its registered office at 202, Vishnu Places, East Boring Canal Road, Patna- 800001 through its authorised signatory Jitendra Kumar Roy, aged about 48 Years, male, S/o Ram Sagar Prasad, Resident of H. No.- 57, Montesari School Lane, Gandhi Nagar, Boring Road, Patna, Bihar800001. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, Bihar.

2.

General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, Bihar. 3.

Divisional Railway Manager, Samastipur Division, East Central Railway, Samastipur, Bihar.

4.

Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer (F.A & CAO), East Central Railway, Hajipur, Bihar.

5.

Chief Project Manager, Gati Shakti, Samastipur Division, East Central Railway.

6.

Alok Kumar Jha, Chief Project Manager, Gati Shakti, Samastipur Division, East Central Railway.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary, Sr. Advocate Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Dr. K.N. Singh, ASG Mr. Alok Kumar, CGC Ms. Prakritita Sharma, J.C. to ASG Mr. Devansh Shankar Singh, JC to ASG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 06-03-2024 Petitioner was aggrieved with the disqualification made in a tender submitted as against the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for upgradation of the Railway Station at Sitamarhi. The ground raised was that the disqualification was made by one

Patna High Court CWJC No.4064 of 2024 dt.06-03-2024 2/2 line. However, at present a clarification has been sought for from the petitioner. The petitioner had filed a representation based on which the petitioner has been called for a consideration.

2. In such circumstance, we permit the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition to agitate the cause before the authority, and if any prejudicial order is passed, to agitate the cause afresh.

3. The writ petition stands closed with the above liberty.

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) (Harish Kumar, J) P.K.P./- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 07.03.2024 Transmission Date