M/S Brijnandan Singh vs The State Of Bihar And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 2360 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14422 of 2015
     ======================================================

M/s Brijnandan Singh, through its Partner Brijnandan Singh, son of Late Mangroo Singh, Resident of Village Lahthan, P.S. Agiaon Bazar, District Ara Bhojpur Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Engineer in Chief Central Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Chief Engineer Water Resources Department, Dehri , District Sararam, Bihar

5. The Superintending Engineer, Planning and Monetoring, Circle 3, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

6. Garima Constracts Pvt. Ltd. Ramgarh, District - Kaimur, Bihar

7. Darshita Builders Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ramgarh, District - Kaimur, Bihar

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Md. Raisul Haque, Advocate For Resp. Nos. 6 & 7 : Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate Mr. Sumit Kr. Jha, Advocate Ms. Riya Giri, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)

Date : 12-05-2023

Heard learned counsels for the respective parties.

2. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the

following relief/reliefs:

"(i) Quashing of the proceedings/ decision of the Departmental Tender Committee dated 12.08.2015 as contained in Memo No. 1271 (Annexure Patna High Court CWJC No.14422 of 2015 dt.12-05-2023

3) by which the Technical Bid of the petitioner has been rejected and action Under Clause 3.3 and 4.8 of Instruction to Bidders under the Standard Bidding Document has been contemplated.

(ii) Direction upon the respondents to consider the financial bid of the petitioner after declaring him successful in the Technical Bid;

(iii) Restraining the petitioner from finalizing the tender and creating third party rights during the pendency of the present writ petition."

3. Petitioner had the benefit of interim order on

18.09.2015. Thereafter, it was vacated on 10.02.2016 at the behest

of respondent No. 7. In view of these facts and circumstances and

the fact that 7th respondent must have executed the subject work,

therefore, the present petition does not survive for consideration.

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          17.05.2023
Transmission Date       NA