M/S. Brijnandan Singh vs The State Of Bihar
2025 Latest Caselaw 2983 Patna

Patna High Court

M/S. Brijnandan Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 2 April, 2025

Author: Partha Sarthy

Bench: Partha Sarthy

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17577 of 2024
     ======================================================
     M/s. Brijnandan Singh through its Partner Brijnandan Singh, aged about 64
     years, Male, son of Late Mangru Singh, Resident of Village Lahthan, P.S.
     Agiaon Bazar, District Bhojpur, Bihar.

                                                                ... ... Petitioner/s
                                        Versus
1.   The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department,
     Government of Bihar, Patna.
2.   The Engineer in Chief, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar,
     Patna.
3.   The Chief Engineer-3, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar,
     Patna.
4.   The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Hilsa, District-Nalanda.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :      Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate
     For the Respondent/s   :      Mr.Addl. Advocate General (3)
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
             and
             HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
     ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 02-04-2025

We have heard Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, the learned

Advocate for the petitioner and the learned counsel for

the respondents.

2. It has been submitted that though petitioner

had been put on debarment list for delay in execution of

work with respect to four items of the contract, but later

the department having come to know that the work could Patna High Court CWJC No.17577 of 2024 dt.02-04-2025

not be completed because of local hindrance, the

petitioner's firm was put out of that debarment list.

3. No lis, thus, remains to be decided by this

Court.

4. The petition has become infructuous.

5. However, Mr. Ranjan, learned Advocate for

the petitioner has submitted that he has filed an

application before the concerned authority for closure of

the contract, which application shall be considered by the

concerned authority with reasons.

6. This petition stands disposed off with the

afore-noted observation.

(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)

(Partha Sarthy, J) manoj/krishna-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          03.04.2025
Transmission Date       NA