IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.208 of 2010 1. MAGADH ADVERTISING BUREAU THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY PARIMAL S.P. VERMA ROAD, P.S. GANDHI MAIDAN, DISTT.- PATNA. ………Intervener- Respondent in the writ court. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 2. THE PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BUDHA MARG, PATNA THROUGH THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER-CUM-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 3. THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER-CUM-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BUDHA MARG, PATNA 4. THE ADDITIONAL MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BUDHA MARG, PATNA 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DIVISION II, PRDA (DISSOLVED) NOW WORKING UNDER PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BUDHA MARG, PATNA 6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BUDHA MARG, PATNA ………………Respondents 1st set in writ court/Respdt.Ist set. 7. M/S BRITE NEON SIGNS PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 201- 202, KASHI PLACE, NEW DAK BUNGLOW ROAD, P.O. G./P.P., P.S. KOTWALI, PATNA 800001 THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR PRASHAN LUTHRA, S/O SRI V.K. LUTHRA, R/O D/68, S.K. PURI, P.O. & P.S.- S.K. PURI, DISTT.- PATNA …………….Writ petitioner in the writ court. Respondent 2nd Set. ……………………………………Respondents. ----------- 5 15.03.2011 The present L.P.A. has been filed against the order dated 22.12.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No.16530 of 2009. The said writ application was filed by the un-official respondent challenging the inaction of the Patna Municipal Corporation for 2 not allowing him to execute the work as per agreement dated 1.8.2009. The appellant herein has also come on record as an Intervener respondent on the ground that any order passed by this Court would prejudice his right. The learned Single Judge after going into merits of the case has not entertained the claim of the intervener respondent and in this regard he has held that so far as the intervener respondent is concerned, it had undisputedly not yet entered into the contract with PESU in respect of Birchand Patel Path though it may have been working thereon. It has also been found that a specific contract was contemplated before the appellant had undertaken the work and charge in terms of the so called understanding of appellant and PESU. In view of the fact that the Intervener- respondent, appellant herein had not entered into any agreement, we are of the considered opinion that he cannot legally support his grievance against the petitioner in the writ application or against the Patna Municipal Corporation. Additionally the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Patna Municipal Corporation has also pointed out that the period for agreement is also over, which by itself, in our opinion, has rendered this appeal to have become infructuous. Recording the above submissions as also taking note of the observation made by the learned Single Judge, we are of the 3 opinion that there is no merit in this L.P.A. and it is accordingly dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)