IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6659 of 2005 ----------- Ranjan Kumar Singh, son of Sri Surya Banshi Singh, resident of Mohalla Digha Ghat, Police Station Digha, District Patna …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Patna Municipal Corporation, through its Chief Executive Officer, Budha Marg, Patna-800001. 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Budha Marg, Patna -800001. 4. The Executive Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Nutan Rajdhani Anchal, Harding Road, Patna -800001. 5. Ujwal Pd. Yadav, son of Sri Dharmnath Roy, resident of Mohalla Digha Haripur Colony, P.S. Digha, District Patna …Respondents. --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Lakshmi Kant Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Binay Kirti Singh, Advocate ------- 02/ 09.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging Parwana (Annexure 11), by which settlement of toll collection of market of Digha I.T.I. Railway Crossing to Digha Canal had been made by the Executive Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation , Nutan Rajdhani Anchal, Patna (respondent no.4) in favour of private respondent no.5 for financial year 2005-2006 vide memo dated 30.03.2005 and also for directing the Chief Executive Officer and the Executive Officer of the Patna Municipal Corporation ( hereinafter referred to as `the Corporation’ for the sake of brevity ) to settle the aforesaid market in favour of the petitioner because he was the highest bidder in the aforesaid bid and 2 also the founder of the establishment of such market. 3. It is quite apparent that this writ petition has become infructuous so far the claim of the petitioner with regard to settlement of the market in question for the year 2005-2006 and for period subsequent to it. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to take part in the fresh bid for settlement in future and if that is made, the authorities of the Corporation shall consider his case and decide the same in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that such bid has not been made since about two years. If the requirement is there in accordance with law, the respondents shall see to it that no delay is caused in the matter. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )