PARSHURAM PRASAD SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in this appeal.

(2.) THE writ petitioners -appellants have participated in a tender for supply of certain articles to the Government Department in response to tender Notice in 2004 but after about 8 months, the order of supply was granted in favour of someone else (Respondent No. 7), who had not responded to the tender floated in 2004, which led to filing of a writ petition before this Court being CWJC No. 4543/2005 challenging the allotment of work given to a stranger without considering the tender submitted in response to tender notice. Realizing the mistake committed by the Government, the supply order offered to a stranger was cancelled. However, in the process the tender notice of 2004 itself was cancelled and fresh tenders were floated. The petitioners had submitted fresh tender in pursuance of new tender notice with a request that security deposit deposited by him alongwith earlier tender be adjusted against security deposit required for fresh tender.

(3.) CONSIDERING these aspects, on 18.5.2006 the aforesaid writ petition was I dismissed as having become infructuous leaving the departmental authorities free to proceed in the matter in terms of the current policy for procurement of articles in question.