Santosh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8379 of 2009 ====================================================== Santosh Kumar son of Sri Rameshwar Prasad, Resident of MohallaQuamruddinganj, At & P.O. Biharsharif, P.S. Laheri, District Nalanda, State Bihar, Pin-803101.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.The State of Bihar.

2.The Principal Secretary, Rural works Department, "Vishweshwarraiya Bhawan", Bailey Road, Bihar, Patna.

3.The Engineer in Chief cum Additional Commissioner cum Special Secretary Rural works Department, "Vishweshwarraiya Bhawan", Bailey Road, Bihar, Patna.

4.The Chief Engineer-I, Rural Works Department, "Vishweshwarraiya Bhawan", Bailey Road, Bihar, Patna.

5.The Superintending Engineer, Rural works Department, Works Circle, Patna.

6.The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Biharsharif, (Nalanda).

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT 29-01-2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset as with regard to the following relief prayed in this writ application:- "For commanding and directing to the concerned respondent to refund the Security deposit amount as well as all admissible dues amount to the petitioner immediately after closing the agreement no. 05F2 of 2007-08, which relates to work namely "Construction of Road under MMGSY from Mirdad to Mananki Via Baswan Bigha for the year 200708", because the said work could not be completed within time due to latches on the part of respondent and these days rates of the materials, Labourers are grown up unusually." seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this application in

Patna High Court CWJC No.8379 of 2009 (2) dt.29-01-2015 order to enable the petitioner to move before the competent authority/Tribunal.

While this Court would accord leave to the learned counsel for the petitioner to withdraw this application but it would also make it clear that now the petitioner will have no liberty to move this Court again for the same cause of action.

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Ranjan/- U