Patna High CourtCWJC/8175/2015dismissed

Hari Shankar Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-12-13Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8175 of 2015 ====================================================== Hari Shankar Prasad Son of Raghnvansh Prasad Resident of village - Gram Gadaichak, Post Office - Manolaiya, Police Station - Meenapur, District - Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through its Secretary, Building Construction Dept. Bihar, Patna.

2. The Engineer in Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner cum Additional Secretary Building Construction Department Bihar Patna.

3. The General Manager Quality Control Bihar State Building Construction Department Bihar, Patna.

4. The Deputy General Manager Building Construction Department, Darbhanga. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

None For the Respondents :

Mr. Kumar Pankaj, AC to SC 5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 13-12-2018 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing letter no. 952 dated 21.03.2014 (Annexure-1) issued by the Bihar State Building Construction Corporation Limited and the letter contained in Memo No. 1333 (n) dated 06.02.2015 by which petitioner-contractor's license has been cancelled with an order of debarment.

2. As none appeared on behalf of the petitioner the matter was passed over for a few cases. However, on repeat call the petitioner was again not represented.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State points out from the impugned letter dated 21.03.2014 and the letter dated 06.02.2015 that the petitioner-contractor's licence does not appear to have been cancelled nor any order of debarment passed. In any event, the impugned letter dated 21.03.2014 has been passed by the respondent-

Patna High Court CWJC No.8175 of 2015 dt.13-12-2018 2/2 Corporation and as such, the respondent-Corporation is a necessary party but it has not been impleaded as a party respondent in the writ petition.

4. Having regard to the submission of learned counsel for the respondent-State, the writ petition stands dismissed as not maintainable.

BT/- (Vikash Jain, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 14.12.2018 Transmission Date N.A.