The M/S Electronic Net v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
Patna High Court CWJC No.3885 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3885 of 2014 ===========================================================
1. The M/S Electronic Net, Through Its Director Sanjeev Kumar S/O Brij Kishore Prasad Sinha, Shekhpura House, Jaishree Gas Agency Campus, Shekhpura, Patna 800014, Po - Bihar Veterinary College , Ps - Shastrinagar .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Managing Director, Bihar State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. Beltron Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna 800023 At Po: Shastrinagar At Ps : Shastrinagar
2. The Project Lead, Human Resources, Bihar State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. Beltron Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna 800023 At Po : Shastrinagar At Ps : Shastrinagar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the BELTRON : Mr. Girijish Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Biresh Kumar Sinha, AC to AAG-2. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 08-01-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State, and learned counsel for the BELTRON.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for a direction to restrain the respondents from awarding the tender to such bidders who have failed to meet the eligibility criteria in terms of the relevant NIT.
3. Despite being required to do so, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy this Court from the pleadings made in the writ petition that the petitioner was itself an eligible tenderer having fulfilled the eligibility conditions of the NIT, in order to establish his locus for maintaining the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3885 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 present writ petition. This Court also takes note that by order dated 20.06.2014, the petitioner had been granted an opportunity to file an affidavit in support of his repetitive arguments, but however, no documents whatsoever pursuant to the said order have been brought on record.
4. In the above view of the matter, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(Vikash Jain, J) Md. Ibrarul/- U