Manik Chand v. The State Of Bihar And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.195 of 2011 =========================================================== Manik Chand, son of Late Kapil Deo Chand, resident of : Mohalla - Ali Nagar, P.S. : Biharsharif, District : Nalanda.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Nalanda

2. The Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Sone Bhavan, Birchand Patel Patha, Patna.

3. The District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, District Transport Committee, Nalanda. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amaresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : None =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 01-10-2018 The present application has been filed for restoration of the contempt application bearing M.J.C. No. 2439 of 2010, which was dismissed for non-compliance of the order dated 04.08.2010.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter could not be attended to as the name of counsel for the petitioner was incorrectly stated in the cause list and which could thus not be detected in the cause list published on Court's website, nor marked in the daily cause list.

3. From a perusal of the connected record of the contempt petition in M.J.C. No. 2439 of 2010, it would appear that the grievance of the petitioner related to recommendation of names of ineligible persons for the purposes of tender floated by the Bihar State

Patna High Court MJC No.195 of 2011 dt.01-10-2018 2/2 Food and Civil Supplies Corporation. The relevant order by quashing the recommendation in favour of the private Respondent no. 4 and for finalizing the contract was passed on 30.04.2010 in C.W.J.C. No. 1267 of 2010, in respect of which the said contempt application in M.J.C. No. 2439 of 2010 was filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has no fresh instruction with regard to the fate of the tender in question. As such, no fruitful purpose will be served in allowing the present petition after lapse of a considerable number of years since the order dated 30.04.2010 was passed in the writ petition.

5. M.J.C. No.195 of 2011 stands dismissed.

(Vikash Jain, J) N.H./- Chandran AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date03-10-2018 Transmission Date N/A