Disposed

Om Prakash Thakur v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC4 Apr 2011CWJC/1020/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ application challenging a money claim of nearly Rs. 18.12 lakhs filed by the petitioner for nursery supply against the State of Bihar, the respondents filed a counter affidavit acknowledging a portion of the liability. Observing this admission and promise to pay the balance, this Court found no need for any further orders and disposed the application accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The writ application was disposed of by enforcing the terms of paragraph 8 of the count

Om Prakash Thakur Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Public Procurement and Tenders | Patna HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1020 of 2010

¶2

OM PRAKASH THAKUR S/O LATE NARAYAN THAKUR PROPRIETOR OF M/S BHARAT NURSERY, R/O N.H. 107, VILLRAMPUR (NEAR DEENPATTI RAILWAY CROSSING), P.S. MURLIGANJ, DISTT. MADHEPURA

¶3

Versus

¶4

THE STATE OF BIHAR

¶5

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SUPAUL, DISTT. SUPAUL

¶6

THE DISTRICT HOTICULTURE OFFICER CUM SECRETARY DISTRICT HOTICULTURE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, SUPAUL

¶7

THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BASANTPUR, SUPAUL

¶8

THE BLOCK AGRICULTURE OFFICER BASANTPUR, SUPAUL

¶9

THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER CHHATARPUR, SUPAUL

¶10

THE BLOCK AGRICULTURE OFFICER CHHATARPUR, SUPAUL

¶11

THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER RAGHOPUR, SUPAUL

¶12

THE PROJECT EXECUTIVE OFFICER MARAUNA, SUPAUL

¶13

THE PROJECT EXECUTIVE OFFICER NIRMALI, SUPAUL 11. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER SARAIGARH, BHAPTIYAARI, DISTT. SUPAUL

¶14

THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER PIPRA, SUPAUL

¶15

THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER PRATAPGANJ, SUPAUL

¶16

THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER SUPAUL, DISTT. SUPAUL

¶17

THE BLOCK AGRICULTURE OFFICER PRATAPGANJ, SUPAUL 16. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KISHANPUR, SUPAUL 17. THE BLOCK AGRICULTURE OFFICER TRIVENIGANJ, SUPAUL

¶18

For the Petitioner:Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha & Mr. Bidhanchandra Jha, Advocates For the Respondents:Mr. Amarendra Kumar, A.C. to G.P.-8 ----------03. 04.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the State.

¶19

Against a money claim of Rs. 18,12,840/- for Nursury supply raised by the petitioner, the counter affidavit filed by the District Horticulture Officer, Supaul at paragraph-6 acknowledges liability straightway of Rs. 14,27,640/- for which Cheque No. 0628869 dated 30.3.2011 is stated to be prepared and handed over to the

¶20

¶21

petitioner.

¶22

Paragraphs- 7 and 8 explicitly acknowledges that further pending claims are under consideration and it is being verified. After verification the legitimate dues shall be further paid within a fortnight.

¶23

In view of the stand taken by the respondents themselves no further orders of the Court are required.

¶24

The writ application stands disposed in terms of paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit to be computed from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order.

¶25

P.K

¶26

( Navin Sinha, J.)

Om Prakash Thakur v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Thakur v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md.Shahnawaj Alam and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Rina Narayan Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Kamala Kumari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Uttam Yadav Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Bindi Devi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Md.Saifullah Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.