Shiv Shankar Bharti And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17143 of 2015 ====================================================== 1.

Shiv Shankar Bharti son of Shri Arjun Prasad, Resident of VillageMakhdoompur, P.O.- Paithna, P.S.- Islampur, Nalanda. 2.

Bijendra Kumar, son of Umesh Prasad, resident of Village- Dariyapur, P.S.- Islampur, Dist- Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

The District Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif. 3.

The District Education Officer, Nalanda.

4.

The District Programme Officer, Madhyan Bhojan Scheme, Nalanda. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raj Kishore Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13 Mr. Arya Achint, AC to AAG-13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) 11-05-2023 In the instant petition, petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s):- "1. I. For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents authorities to provide the contract as per press communication as tender notice advertised on 18.6.2015 by the State Government against which petitioners have filed their requisite form along with sufficient Bank Draft.

II. For that further direction to the respondent authorities to take proper and judicious decision over the press Tender Notice with respect to selection of contract for facilitating the Madhyan Bhojan to the students in concerned for which petitioners have applied.

Patna High Court CWJC No.17143 of 2015(2) dt.11-05-2023 2/2 III. Further for issuance of any other writ/writs order/orders, direction/directions for which petitioners shall be found entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case taking into consideration of the enquiry of justice."

2. The relief sought by the petitioner does not survive in view of passage of time from the year 2015 to 2023. Therefore, the present petition stands disposed of as it has become infructuous. If the petitioners' grievance relating to any of the refund amount is involved, in that event, the petitioner is at liberty to approach appropriate forum, in accordance with law.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J) (Arun Kumar Jha, J) shoaib/- U