State Of Bihar And ORS v. Baban Pandey And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.791 of 2015 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12121 of 2014 ===========================================================

1. State of Bihar through the Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Engineer in Chief Cum Additional Commissioner Cum - Special Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Chief Engineer, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Circle, Sasaram, Rohtas.

5. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Bikramganj, District - Rohtas.

6. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Bhabhua, Kaimur .... .... Appellants

Versus

1. Baban Pandey Son of Late Ram Guchhi Pandey, Resident of Village - Jogia, P.O. - Labhai, District - Rohtas.

2. The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

.... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Ms. Binita Singh, SC-28 Mr. Siddharth Shankar Pandey, AC to SC-28 For the Respondent/s : None.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date: 16-08-2017 Despite valid service of notice, nobody represents the respondent no. 1. Since passing of the order dated 21.07.2014 by the learned Single Judge in the writ

Patna High Court LPA No.791 of 2015 dt.16-08-2017 application and during the pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal, certain facts which was not made known earlier has been brought on record which have taken place which includes that a re-tender was done of the work. Even the private respondent participated, he did not bother to challenge the said award of contract. Now the work also stands completed. In support thereof, learned counsel for the State has filed a supplementary affidavit with the concerned documents.

In view of the same, no adjudication is required to be made now. The observation made by the learned Single Judge in the given facts cannot be considered to be a binding precedent.

The Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of. Rajeev/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 17.08.2017 Transmission Date 17.08.2017