Arun Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11830 of 2015 ====================================================== Arun Kumar Son of Ramanuj Sharma, Resident of Moh. - New Colony, Delha, P.S. - Delha, District - Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Urban Development & Housing Department, Bihar, Patna.

2. The Chief Engineer, Urban Development & Housing Department, Bihar, Patna.

3. The Superintending Engineer, Urban Development & HOusing Department South Bihar, Patna.

4. The Gaya Municipal Corporation, Gaya through its Municipal Commissioner, Gaya.

5. The Municipal Commissioner, Gaya Municipal Corporation, Gaya.

6. The Executive Engineer, Gaya Municipal Commissioner Gaya.

7. Umesh Kumar, S/o Late Raghunandan Prasad, R/o Mohalla Kharkhura Bhaluahi, P.S. - Delha District - Gaya.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv For the Respondent/s :

Mrs. Kumari Amrita ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-12-2018 The present writ petition has been filed for directing the respondent authorities to produce the order by which the respondent no. 7 namely, Umesh Kumar has been declared successful in the technical bid in respect of the work namely, construction of road from Bhaluahi Kharkhua Road to transformer under Ward No. 3 of Gaya Municipal Corporation, Gaya and construction of drain published in Tender No. 03/2014-15 and to quash the same; and for

Patna High Court CWJC No.11830 of 2015 dt.17-12-2018 2/2 quashing the part of the order dated 15.07.2015 contained in letter No. 1363 by which permission has been granted to the respondent no. 7 to rectify his bank drafts and NSCs against the earnest money.

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the tender was for different works with various completion periods upto 18 months, which have all along elapsed and the matter has become infructuous by efflux of time and the writ petition need not be pressed.

3. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. (Vikash Jain, J) Chandran/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 19.12.2018 Transmission Date NA