Patna High CourtCWJC/9023/2017dismissed

M/S Bangali Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-11-08Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9023 of 2017 =========================================================== M/s Bangali Singh Son of Late Laxmi Singh, resident of Village- Mohanpur, P.S.- Muffasil, District- Begusarai.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Bihar, Patna.

2. The Engineer-in- Chief IIIrd Rural Works Department, Bihar, Patna.

3. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department Circle, Samastipur.

4. The Executive Engineer Rural Works Department, Works Division, Ballia.

5. The Executive Engineer Rural Works Department, Works Division, Begusarai.

6. The Account Officer, Rural Works Department Works Pramandal, Begusarai.

7. M/S Astha & Somya Construction Begusarai (Registration No. 1150336, (BID 188627).

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Archana Meenakshee -GP6 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 08-11-2017 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter memo No. 535 dated 15.04.2017 issued under the signature of the Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Samastipur as contained in Annexure-3 to this writ petition by which in proceeding dated 15.04.2017 the application of Tenders of the petitioner has not been allowed and selected the private respondent no. 7 for construction/up-gradation of roads under Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojna and their maintenance for five years for the road L026 to Lavarchak Bhaban Tola, length 5.06 Kms. under Block & P.S.

Patna High Court CWJC No.9023 of 2017 dt.08-11-2017 Matihani, District Begusarai; and for connected reliefs.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset states that the works in question has now been awarded to the private respondent no. 7 and the petitioner is no longer desirous of contesting the matter. It is however, submitted that the respondents are liable to refund the security deposit of the petitioner.

3. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the concerned authority for refund of the security deposit.

(Vikash Jain, J) Chandran/BT AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 09.11.2017 Transmission Date N.A.