Patna High CourtCWJC/5360/2014dismissed

M/S Mahiraj Construction Works v. The Union Of India And ORS

2016-01-18Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5360 of 2014 =========================================================== M/S Mahiraj Construction Works through its proprietor Rajesh Kumar, Son of Sri Subash Prasad, Resident of Sultanpur, Ambedkar Gali, Danapur Cant, District - Patna .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi

2. The Director General, Directorate General of Defence Estates, Raksha Sampada Bhawan, Ulaanbaatar Marg, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi

3. The Danapur Cantonment Board through Its Chief Executive Officer, Danapur, Patna

4. The Chief Executive Officer, the Danapur Cantonment Board, Danapur, Patna

5. M/s Dynamic Services, Registered Office at 139, Dak Shindari Road, Kolkata 700048 .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Ranjan No.1, Advocate For the Respondents: Mrs. Kanak Verma, C.G.C. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 18-01-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the communication dated 31.12.2013 as contained in Annexure-4 whereby and whereunder the contract for supply of "Safaiwala" awarded to the petitioner firm was terminated and the same was awarded to another firm who is said to be the lowest bidder.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that the relevant notice inviting tender contemplated a period upto March, 2015 for completion of the work which has already elapsed.

Patna High Court CWJC No.5360 of 2014 dt.18-01-2016 2/2

4. In that view of the matter, the prayer in the writ petition has been rendered infructuous by efflux of time and no positive relief can be granted to the petitioner at this belated stage.

5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous.

(Vikash Jain, J) B.T/- U