M/S Deo Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2350 of 2016 ====================================================== M/s. Deo Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at A1, Trimurti Apartment, Basant Vihar, Road No. 1A, HRMU, Ranchi through its Director Nand Kumar Yadav, Son of Sri Punit Pd. Yadav, Resident of Khagariya, P.S.- Manshi, P.O.- Manshi, District- Khagariya. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through the Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Chief Engineer-2, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Circle, Saharsa.
6. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Division, Gogari, Khagariya.
.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Y.V.Giri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bimlendu Shekher Thakur, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kuman Tiwary, AC to G.A. 2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER 26-09-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The writ application was filed for a direction to the respondents to issue a letter of intent to the petitioner in connection with the work of construction of RCC Bridge in PMGSY, Beldaur Pachout REO road to Deghon via Murli Road pursuant to an advertisement dated 15.8.2015 published in the newspapers.
The case of the petitioner was taken up by this Court on 25.5.2016 and it had noted the fact stated in the counter affidavit that process of re-tender has been initiated. As a matter of fact, the re-tender notice was published on 19.5.2016. The petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.2350 of 2016 (4) dt.26-09-2016 without informing the Court and seeking permission of the Court participated in the re-tender process.
It is informed by learned counsel for the State that the technical bid has been opened but as yet no final decision has been taken.
The fact that the petitioner has participated in fresh tender process without informing the Court and seeking leave of the Court would make it anomalous to proceed further with the present writ petition.
The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J) spal/- U