Manvindar Kaur v. The State Of Bihar,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18053 of 2024 ====================================================== Manvindar Kaur W/o C.A RAm Raghab Chaudhary Resident of 202 Block A, Myrah Residency, Road No.4, Mahesh Nagar, P.S.- Patliputra, District- Patna (Bihar).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar, Through the Principal Secretary Urban Development and Housing Development, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Chief Managing Director, Bihar Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited. Rajapur Pul, West Boring Canal Road, Patna 800001. 3.

The Managing Director, Bihar Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Rajapur Pul, West Boring Canal Road, Patna 800001. 4.

The Director M/s S.K. Patodia and Associates, Sunil Patodia Tower, Plot no.-156-158, JB Road, Andheri East, Mumbai (Maharashtra). ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shaishav Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Addl. Advocate General (3) Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, AC to AAG-3 For the BUIDCO :

Mr. Mr. Lalit Kumar, Sr. Advocate Mr. R. K. Priyadarshi, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 02-12-2024 The petitioner submits that he applied under a tender which was issued, as per Annexure-P 1 and that though he was declared as L1, without any reason the same was cancelled. The petitioner also submits that there was a fresh tender issued.

2. From the reliefs, we do not see any challenge

Patna High Court CWJC No.18053 of 2024(2) dt.02-12-2024 2/2 against the cancellation or the issuance of a fresh tender. The relief sought is for consideration of representation filed against the cancellation, ensure that no firm is favored after opening of tender, unnecessary weightage and extension given to respondent No.4 and the extension granted to the respondent No.4.

3. Insofar as the consideration of a representation, though there is a right conferred on the petitioner to know the reason for cancellation, the petitioner having not challenged the cancellation and also the issuance of fresh tender, there is no ground to proceed on that. As far as the other relief sought for against the 4th respondent, it is no more germane since, the tender itself has been cancelled and another published.

4. We find absolutely no relief which could be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition stands dismissed. (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) ( Partha Sarthy, J) sharun/- U