Man Mardan Shukla v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13771 of 2009 ====================================================== Man Mardan Shukla S/O- Late Ram Das Shukla ,Director , M/S Man Mardan Shukla Construction Pvt. Ltd. Naya Tola , Speaker Lane, P.S- Kazi Mohammadpur, Distt- Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar Through Chief Engineer (Hajipur) R.E.O Division, 5th Block , Bishweshwaria Bhawan , Patna

2. The Executive Engineer, R.E.O (W) Division Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, AC to AAG5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 30-01-2015 No one appears for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State is present.

Having regard to the fact that the prayer of the petitioner in this writ application, relevant portion whereof reads as follows: " Commanding the respondents to further extend the agreement No. F-2-1/2007-08 which was order to commence from 3.4.2007 and the date of completion was within 6(six) months which was issued under the signature of Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization (R.E.O.) West, Division, Muzaffarpur as contained in Annexure 1 and further for issuance of an appropriate writ after extension of the agreement of Agreement No.F-21/2007-08 the payment of the same be made in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and further for payment/ release of earnest money which has been taken by the office of the Executive Engineer, R.E.O.(W) Division, Muzaffarpur after completion of the work within

Patna High Court CWJC No.13771 of 2009 (4) dt.30-01-2015 extended time/ period."

and that the respondents having filed the counter affidavit have clearly stated that such extension of time upto 30.12.2012 had been granted to the petitioner, will necessarily mean that this writ application has become infructuous.

Let it be noted that such stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit, copy whereof was served on the learned counsel for the petitioner on 22.4.2013, has not been disputed by the petitioner by any manner by filing any rejoinder affidavit. Thus, on account of the facts noted above, this application has become infructuous and is, accordingly, disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) surendra/- U