Sandeep Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.24448 of 2013 ====================================================== Sandeep Kumar Son Of Satyanarayan Yadav Resident Of Village- Sohma, P.S.- Bithan, District- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna

2. The Special Director Mid Day Meal Scheme, Department Of Human Resources, Government Of Bihar

3. The District Magistrate Cum-Chairman Mid Day Meal Scheme Selection Committee, Samastipur

4. Braj Kishore Lal The Additional Collector Cum-In-Charge Mid Day Meal Scheme, Samastipur

5. Pritam Prakash, Prakhand Sadhan Sevi, Mid Day Meal Scheme, Samastipur

6. Awadhesh Kumar Yadav Son Of Ram Payare Yadav Resident Of VillageBailsandi, P.S.- Bithan, District- Samastipur ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam, Adv Mr. Majid Mehboob Khan, Adv For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Manish Kumar, AC to GP 4 For the Mid Day Meal Scheme : Mr. Girijesh Kumar, Adv ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 13-12-2018 The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs - (i) Issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned letter no. 303 dated 05.04.2013 by which the respondent no. 6 has been allotted transportation work for mid day meal scheme for the period 2013 (March)-2014 (March) without any general tender and without any authority of law. (ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to produce the relevant papers with regard to Tractor/Truck submitted by respondent no. 6 for the purpose of getting the tender for the year 2012-13 which is the

Patna High Court CWJC No.24448 of 2013 dt.13-12-2018 2/2 basis of issuance of letter no. 5068 dated 25.04.2011. (iii) For issuance of any other writ/writs, order/orders, command/commands, direction/directions as your Lordship may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the matter has become infructuous by efflux of time and the writ petition need not be pressed. However, he invites attention to para 5 of the writ petition, inter alia, stating that bank guarantee of Rs. 50,000/- had been deposited by the petitioner, which is required to be refunded.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents appears and has been heard.

4. Having regard to the nature of the confined relief sought by the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority with a representation for redressal of his grievances. If any such representation is filed within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of within a further period of eight weeks thereafter after grant of an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law.

(Vikash Jain, J) Chandran/BT AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 14.12.2018 Transmission Date NA