Chandan Kumar Singh @ Chandan Singh Samrat v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20361 of 2016 ===========================================================

1. Chandan Kumar Singh @ Chandan Singh Samrat, son of Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, resident of Village- Khairwa, P.O.- Maniyari, P.S. + District- Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi.

3. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Secretary, District Health Committee, Sitamarhi.

4. Imperishable Security Services Private Limited, Dharm Kanta Chowk, NH-57, Mahesh Bhagat Banwari Lal Intermediate College Road, Bairiya, Muzaffarpur842003, through its Proprietor- Kamlesh Kant Giri.

5. Yug Parivartan Sansthan, Jagriti Tola Mansi, Post- Mansi, District- Khagaria, Bihar- 851214, through its Proprietor.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.D. Yadav- AAG-9 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 04-05-2017 In the matter of award of contract to Respondent No.5 by the District Magistrate, Respondent No.4, for outsourcing certain security work in the hospital in question, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the suitability of selecting Respondent No.5 for the work in question.

On going through the averments in the writ petition it is evident that the petitioner has filed this writ petition in public interest and we do not see any reason why we should interfere into

Patna High Court CWJC No.20361 of 2016 dt.04-05-2017 2/2 the matter.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the award of contract to Respondent No.5 and the grievance of the petitioner should be considered by the competent authority of the State Government or the District Magistrate himself at the instance of the petitioner. On the grounds canvassed, we are not inclined to go into the matter. We, therefore, dispose of the application with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Sudhir Singh, J) K.C.jha/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 5.5.2017 Transmission Date N/A