← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/3142/2013disposed

Babloo Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-04-12Mr. Justice Jyoti Saran2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3142 of 2013 ======================================================

1. Babloo Kumar Singh S/O Ram Lapak Singh R/O Village- Barka Dumra, P.S.- Ara Mufassil, District- Bhojpur at Ara .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Secretary Department of Building Construction, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

2. The Secretary Department of Building Construction, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

3. Chief Engineer (South) Building Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

4. The Superintendent Engineer, Building Circle, Ara

5. The Executive Engineer Building Construction Department, Building Division, Ara

6. Ranjan Kumar Singh (Son of Not Known) Village- Rampur, PostBarhara, Bhojpur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Naresh Dikshit For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 12-04-2016 None appears on behalf of the petitioner.

Counsel for the State is present and has been heard. Perused the record. The petitioner has questioned the order dated 31.12.2012 whereby the work for construction of houses for five gazetted officers was allotted to the respondent no.6 pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tender, published in 'Hindustan' and 'Dainik Jagran'on 14.10.2012. Learned counsel for the State with reference to the counter affidavit has submitted that 5 persons responded and when

Patna High Court CWJC No.3142 of 2013 (4) dt.12-04-2016 2/2 the tender was opened it was found that all the applicants have quoted the same price which was 15% less than the balance of quantity rate. It was thus decided to hold a lottery about which the petitioner was also informed. It is stated that the petitioner was present when the lottery was drawn which went in favour of private respondent no. 6 and thus the allocation of work suffered no infirmity.

Having heard learned counsel for the State and considering the explanation given in the counter affidavit, I do not feel persuaded to grant indulgence to the issue raised. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (Jyoti Saran, J) Siddharth/- U