IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1154 of 2010 M/S MAGADH ADVERTISING BUREAU Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5 15.2.2010 After much deliberation and submissions made at the bar the final stand of the respondent Municipal Corporation, Patna is that the notice inviting tender is to be read in the manner that it does not cover the area for which the settlement has been made in favour of the petitioner, the details of the roads of which the petitioner has been given the franchisee to develop and provide corresponding lighting etc. are already reflected in various minutes and decisions taken by the concerned authority, including the Urban Development Department, Bihar State Electricity Board as well as representative of the Municipal Corporation. If what has been stated by learned counsel for the respondents Corporation is accepted then there is no lis or dispute to be decided in the writ application except clarifying that the notice inviting tender will not overlap the area of settlement of the petitioner. The other settlements can be made according to the terms and conditions of the notice inviting tender. It may be clarified that if any further resettlement is to be made after the expiry of the contract of the petitioner the respondents Corporation surely has liberty to do so. This writ application in view of the stated above position stands disposed of RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)