Patna High CourtCWJC/6085/2014dismissed

Babita Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-01-18Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6085 of 2014 =========================================================== Babita Devi, Wife of Ajay Kumar Rai, Resident of Rai Sahab Pokhar, Laheriasarai, Police Station - Bahadurpur, District - Darbhanga .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. The Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

3. Chief Engineer, Urban Development and Housing Department, Bihar, Patna

4. Superintending Engineer, Urban Development and Housing Department, Bihar, Patna

5. The Executive Engineer, Urban Development and Department of Housing and District Urban Development Agency

6. Commission, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga

7. District Magistrate, Darbhanga

8. Jitendra Thakur Son of Bachel Jha, resident of village - Jalwar Banauli, Police Station - Simari, District - Darbhanga .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Girish Chandra Jha, Advocate For the Respondents: Mrs. Archana Jha, AC to GA 13 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 18-01-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a direction to the respondents to cancel the tender allotted to respondent no. 8 and hand over the same to the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that the relevant notice inviting tender contemplated a period of six months for completion of the work which has already elapsed. It is, however, stated that despite not having been allotted the work,

Patna High Court CWJC No.6085 of 2014 dt.18-01-2016 2/2 petitioner's security amount etc. have not yet been refunded.

4. In that view of the matter, the prayer in the writ petition has been rendered infructuous by efflux of time and no positive relief can be granted to the petitioner at this belated stage.

5. The writ petition stands dismissed as having become infructuous. Needless to say, the petitioner has always liberty to approach the respondents for redressal of any remaining grievances. (Vikash Jain, J) B.T/- U