Patna High CourtCWJC/3789/2012dismissed

M/S Ganesh Ram Dokania v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-04-29Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3789 of 2012 ====================================================== M/S Ganesh Ram Dokania, a Partnership Firm having its Head Office at Banka, P.S.- Banka, District- Banka and a Branch Office At 203, Basudeo Vihar Apartment, Nageshwar Colony, P.S. Budha Colony, Town & District Patna - Through its Authorized Partner Abhishek Sharma, Son Krishna Deo Sharma, 203 Basudeo Vihar Apartment, Nageshwar Colony, P.S.- Budha Colony, Town & District- Patna .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Rural Work Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Work Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

3. The Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Secretary, Rural Work Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

4. The Chief Engineer, Rural Work Department, Bhagalpur

5. The Superintendent Engineer, Rural Work Department, Bhagalpur

6. The Technical Secretary, Technical Committee Member, Rural Work Department, Bhagalpur .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. G.K. Agrawal, GA 10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 29-04-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.10.2011 passed by the Technical Evaluation Committee, Rural Work Department, Bhagalpur by which the technical bid of the petitioner relating to construction and maintenance of Rural Bridge/Road has been rejected and for connected reliefs.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner

Patna High Court CWJC No.3789 of 2012 (4) dt.29-04-2016 2/2 fairly states that the main relief relating to the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner's firm has become infructuous.

4. In that view of the matter, the remaining questions are academic in nature and need not be decided in the present writ petition.

5. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed as having become infructuous.

(Vikash Jain, J) B.T/- U