Shivani Enterprises v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14328 of 2016 =========================================================== Shivani Enterprises through its Proprietor Amarnath S/o Late Ramchandra Mistry, resident of East of Makhania Kuan, Attachakki Gali, P.S. Pirbahore, District - Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Health Secretary having his office at Vikas Bhawan, P.S. Sachivalya, District Patna

2. The Director in Chief, Health Department having his office at Vikas Bhawan, P.S. Sachivalya, District Patna, District Patna

3. The Superintendent, Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital, Laheriasarai, Darbhanga. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vikas Mohan and Mukeshwar Dayal For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay Behari Sinha-GA8 Mr. Neeraj Raj, AC to GA-8 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 18-01-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

In this case, the petitioner is challenging the notice dated 10.08.2016 published in the Daily Hindi Newspaper for appointing the Contractor for cleaning, trolly and sanitation purposes in Darbhanga Medical College Hospital, Laheriasarai. The petitioner being a successful L-1 bidder in auction, was earlier appointed as Contractor for cleaning, sanitation and trolly purposes, but after five years, the authority has decided to go for fresh selection of Contractor.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a provision in the agreement that if the work is found to be

Patna High Court CWJC No.14328 of 2016 dt.18-01-2017 2/2 satisfactory, the period of contract could be extended. He further submits that earlier the period was extended, but this action is discretionary exercise of power of the Management and the Court cannot compel the Management to extend the period of contract which has already expired but it is Management has to decide about exercise of discretion.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has an apprehension that his case will not be taken into consideration and as such he has approached this Court. The counsel for the State submits that the work of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and that is the reason for the Authority to go for fresh selection of Contractor. If petitioner is one of the Contender, his matter will be taken into consideration in accordance with law on its merit. This Court is not giving any opinion on the merit of the case and any observation made in this order either in favour of petitioner or to the respondent will not be taken into consideration. With the above observation/direction, this petition is disposed of.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) Mahesh/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 20.01.2017 Transmission Date