M/S Shri Sharda Intrastate Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23756 of 2012 =========================================================== M/s Shri Sharda Intrastate Pvt. Ltd., through its Director, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Son of Prabhunath Singh, having in registered office at Laxmipur, Siwandhala, P.O.-Siwan, P.S.-Siwan, Town& District -Siwan .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Industry, Bihar, Patna
2. The Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation (BICICO), Bihar, Patna
3. The Managing Director, BICICO, Bihar, Patna
4. The Deputy Manager (A/C) BICICO, Bihar, Patna
5. Niraj Agarwal, Son of not known R/O Catalyst House, Behind S.K. Puri Road No. 1A, Boring Road, Patna .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhakar Singh, Mr. Rakesh Mohan Singh, Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocates For Respondent-BICICO: Mr. Nirmal Kumar, Advocate For the State : Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay, SC 2 Mr. Rohit Rajeshi, AC to SC 2 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 27-10-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for cancelling the oral bid held by the respondent no. 3 on 19.10.2012 for the purpose of sale of the unit mentioned at serial no. 6 in sale notice dated 03.10.2012 in favour of respondent no. 5 though it was kept in abeyance and finalized on 01.11.2012; and for connected reliefs.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondentBICICO submits that the writ petition has become infructuous in view
Patna High Court CWJC No.23756 of 2012 dt.27-10-2016 2/2 of the minutes of the Board meeting held on 13.03.2013 wherein the sale of the assets in question was disapproved by the Board and the consideration amount received from the respondent no. 5 was directed to be refunded and fresh tender was required to be issued for sale of the assets.
4. The stand of the respondent-BICICO has not been controverted as no rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner.
5. In the above view of the matter, the writ petition stands disposed.
(Vikash Jain, J) B.T/Chandran AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 29.10.2016 Transmission Date N.A.