Baij Nath Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3324 of 2018 ====================================================== Baij Nath Singh Son of Late Shital Singh, Resident of Village- Rodgha, P.O.- Barakala, P.S.- Kothi, District- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Principal Secretary, Building Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Additional Secretary, Building Construction Department, Patna. 4.

The Chief Engineer, Building Construction Department, Patna. null 5.

The Superintendent Engineer, Building Construction Department, Building Division, Gaya.

6.

The Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Gaya. 7.

The Estimating Officer, Building Construction Department, Gaya. 8.

The Proprietor Sai Balaji Construction Private Limited, 310, Ashiana Tower, Exhibition Road, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

For the Respondent/s :

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) Date : 04-04-2023 None appears on behalf of the respective parties.

2. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief/reliefs:

"That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writs/direction commanding the respondents to produce and quash work order given to respondent No. 8 for construction of boundary wall of Ambedkar Hostel, Sherghati

Patna High Court CWJC No.3324 of 2018 dt.04-04-2023 2/2 District Gaya. The petitioner further prays to allot the work of construction of boundary wall of Ambedkar Hostel, Sherghati to him as his name has come out in lottery and also grants any other relief for which petitioner is found entitled in the circumstances and the case."

3. From perusal of the records, it is evident that no interim order has been granted in stalling the work order allotted to respondent No. 8. During pendency of the present petition, 8th respondent must have executed the work, therefore, the present petition has become infructuous.

4. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed as infructuous.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J) (Arun Kumar Jha, J) GAURAV S./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 10.04.2023 Transmission Date NA