Petitioner challenged award of a work contract to a respondent lacking qualifications. Court dismissed writ petition as infructuous because the contract period had expired during pendency.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.6996 of 2017
M/s. Mithila Construction.
.......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
.......... Respondents.
----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----For the Petitioner : Mr. K. M. Sinha, Sr. Advocate For the UOI : Mrs. Nitu Sinha, CGC -----
Order No.04 Date: 04.12.2018
The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to terminate the work contract allotted to the respondent no.3, as it has neither the requisite qualification nor has any performance credential for award of the work in question in pursuance of Notice Inviting Tender dated 25th May, 2016.
Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that since the period of work contract awarded to the respondent no.3 has already expired during pendency of the writ petition, the writ petition has become infructuous.
In view of the said submission, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Sanjay/
M/s. Mithila Construction
Union of India
The Director, CSIR, National Metallurgical Laboratory, Jamshedpur
M/s. Limelight Service Agency, Kolkata
Rajesh Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
