Patna High CourtCWJC/3979/2017dismissed

Ravi Shankar Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-01-05Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3979 of 2017 =========================================================== Ravi Shankar Singh, S/o Late Satyendra Singh, Resident of Village-Tilauti, P.S.- Haspura, District-Aurangabad.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Government of Bihar, Rural Works Department, Bisheshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

2. The Chief Engineer, Rural Works Department, Bisheshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

3. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Circle, Gaya, District-Gaya.

4. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Tekari, District- Gaya

5. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Sherghati, District-Gaya

6. The Accountant, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Tekari, DistrictGaya

7. Amritraj Construction through its Proprietor Dilip Kumar, S/o Basant Singh, resident of Shanti Kunj, Near Brahm Asthan, Kurthaul, P.O.-Kurthaul, P.S.-Parsa Bazar, District-Patna.

.... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : None For the Respondents : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, AC to GP6 For Respondent No. 7 : Mr. Sanjay Kumar No. 1, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 05-01-2018 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the Financial Bid of Amritraj Construction, of NIT No. RWD/PMGSY/ HQIET/16-010 dated 15.12.2016, Package No. BR-12R-830 (L136 Tekari Bhavanpur road sowal to Lakshmipur Vishnupur), Tender I.D. 2016-ECBIH-46374 and subsequent order thereon.

2. None appears on behalf of the petitioner despite repeated calls.

Patna High Court CWJC No.3979 of 2017 dt.05-01-2018 2/2

3. Learned counsel for the State appears and has been heard.

4. Learned counsel for the private respondent no. 7 appears and submits that the writ petition has become infructuous inasmuch as the work in question has since been awarded to respondent no. 7 and the work is on the verge of completion.

5. Having regard to the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. The writ petition stands dismissed. (Vikash Jain, J) B.T/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 09.01.2018 Transmission Date N.A.