IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18880 of 2010 Indraparastha Securities Services Pvt. Ltd., A Private Limited Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956 Its Registered Office At 46, Ashiana Galaxy, Exhibition Road, Patna-80001 Through Sri Bambam Sing, Managing Director …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Health Deptt., Govt. Of Bihar, Patna Through Its Secretary 3. Patna Medical College & Hospital, Patna Through Its Superintendent 4. Superintendent, Patna Medical College & Hospital, Patna 5. Purchase Committee, Patna Medical College & Hospital Through The Superintendent 6. M/S Shiwani Enterprises Having Its Office At Atachaki Gali, Makhania Kuan, Patna Through Its Director Sri Amar 7. M/S Niska Security & Intelligence Services Pvt. Ltd., Ff-3, Luiv-Kush Tower, Exhibition Road, Patna Through Its Director Sri Rajeev Ranjan Prasad 8. Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Managing Director, M/S Niska Security & Intelligence Services Pvt. Ltd. Ff-3, Luv-Kush Tower, Exhibition Road, Patna …..Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. Alok Kumar, A.C. to G.A. For Respondent no.6: Mr. Chandra Shekhar Singh, Advocate For Respondentsno.7&8: Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate --------------- 19/ 11.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and its authorities and learned counsel for respondent no. 6 as well as learned counsel for respondents no. 7 and 8. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the decision taken by the Purchase Committee of Patna Medical College & Hospital, Patna ( hereinafter referred to as `the PMCH, Patna’ for the sake of brevity ) in its meeting dated 27.09.2010 to award a part of the security work/job to respondents no. 6 and 7. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has claimed that - 2 - the said order is in complete violation of the tender conditions and also with mala fide intention to confer benefit upon respondents no.6 and 7 by violating the established procedure of law. A direction has also been sought to respondents no. 1 to 5 to award the total contract in favour of the petitioner in terms of the tender in question and for other ancillary reliefs. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the said order was given effect to by Annexure 7 vide memo no. 11655 dated 27.10.2010 (Annexure 7) issued by the Superintendent of P.M.C.H. , Patna (respondent no.4). 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has categorically denied the averments made by the petitioner on merit. . 5. It is agreed by the parties that the work allotted was for one year from the date of issuance of the work order until the next tender and the said period is going to expire by the end of the month of November, 2011. In the said circumstances, the said period having come to an end, fresh tender notice is to be issued for the subsequent period by the authorities, if they so like. Accordingly, the reliefs claimed by the petitioner in the instant writ petition have come to an end, specially in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 09.12.2010, which order has been given effect to vide letter no. 13120 dated 14.12.2010. 7. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of. It may be noted that no matter with respect to the merit or otherwise of the claims of the parties has been considered by this Court. - 3 - 8. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it has submitted its bills for the work done by it, but no order has been passed by the authorities on the said bills as yet and not a single farthing has been paid to the petitioner due to pendency of this writ petition. In the said circumstances, the concerned authority, namely, the Superintendent of P.M.C.H., Patna is hereby directed to consider the said bills of the petitioner in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 09.12.2010 and the works done by the petitioner pursuant to the order of the authorities dated 14.12.2010 and if any amount is found to be payable, it should be immediately paid to the petitioner in terms of the contract. MPS/ (S.N.Hussain, J.)