Petitioner sought writ to quash seizure of deposits and direct payment, arguing respondents failed to act on applications. Court dismissed petition noting finalization and blacklisting of petitioner occurred before petition filing without timely challenge, rendering delay unfair.
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 JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14295 of 2015
======================================================
M/s Neel Khruv Construction Company Son of Late Ramanand Mishra, resident of Gandak Colonoy Road, Raghunathpur, Motihari, P.s.- Turkauliya, District- East Champaran Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumar Alok, SC-7 Mr. Satyeshwar Prasad, AC to SC-7
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
following relief(s):-
“i) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing the letter no. 235 dated 6-4-2015 issued under the signature of Executive Engineer Rural Works Department, work Division Sheohar address to petitioner whereby
Patna High Court CWJC No.14295 of 2015(4) dt.26-06-2023
2/3
and where under M/S Neel Dhruv Construction Company Performance and security deposit amount is being seized and also to recovered the Government Fund.
ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to make payment of performance as well as security deposit amount agreed by the respondent at the time of Agreement bearing SBD/ PMGSY/ Mising link 15 of 2008-09
iii) For holding that respondent can't invoke clause 53.1 of General condition of contract and clause 26 of contract data (Annexure-1) between M/S Neel Dhruv Construction Company and respondents (Execution Engineer) as himself has not acted on the application of the petitioner (Annexure- 3 and 4).
iv) For issuance of any other appropriate writ/ order/ direction which your lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.14295 of 2015(4) dt.26-06-2023 3/3
assailed by the petitioner by means of interlocutory applicationamendment of writ petition. It is about one decade in not questioning the decision dated 11.11.2013 and further blacklisting, therefore question of granting liberty at this distance of time is not fair.
dismissed.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
( Jitendra Kumar, J)
Amrendra/-
U
M/s Neel Khruv Construction Company
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department
P. B. Bajanthri
Jitendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
