IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1087 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18033 of 2009 With Interlocutory Application No. 5047 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1087 of 2011 ====================================================== Mamta Kumari, wife of Vijay Kumar Singh, Resident of Mohalla Gogari Jamalpur, Ward No.12, Police Station Gogari, District Khagaria. .... .... Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. District Magistrate, Khagaria. 3. Nagar Panchayat, Gogari Jamalpur, District Khagaria through its Executive Officer. 4. Chairman, Nagar Panchayat, Gogari Jamalpur, District Khagaria. 5. Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Gogari Jamalpur, District Khagaria. 6. Executive Engineer, Special Division, Khagaria. 7. Sub-Divisional Officer, Khagaria. .... .... Respondents/Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, A.C. to AAG-4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Patna High Court LPA No.1087 of 2011 (2) dt.28-07-2011 2 / 2 2 2. 28.07.2011 Interlocutory Application No. 5047 of 2011: The delay of 20 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Letters Patent Appeal No.1087 of 2011: This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the writ petitioner against the judgment and order dated 29th March 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 18033 of 2009. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of the offer given in answer to the advertisement No.3/2009-2010, the appellant-writ petitioner filed above C.W.J.C. No. 18033 of 2009 under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned single Judge has held that the rejection of the offer of the appellant was on technical ground and that the fresh tender notice was published and has rejected the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved the writ petitioner has preferred the present Appeal. Learned advocate Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the reasons for which the offer of the appellant was rejected were not germane. On flimsy grounds the offer could not have been rejected. Be that as it may, in view of the passage of time and the fresh tender having been invited, no relief can be granted to the appellant. Appeal is dismissed. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Pawan Kumar/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)