IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1023 of 2008 RAMA KANT SINGH, S/O LATE RAM KHELAWAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF 101, LOTUS APARTMENT, NEW PATLIPUTRA COLONY, P.S. PATLIPUTRA ,DISTRICT PATNA ................................... APPELLANT Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH CABINET SECRETARY, NEW DELHI 2. THE IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PLOT NO. C-4, DISTRICT CENTRE, SAKET, NEW DELHI-110017. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. PLOT NO. C-4 DISTRICT CENTRE, SAKET, NEW DELHI-110017. 4. THE ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER, PROJECT IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. PLOT NO. C-4, DISTRICT CENTRE, SAKET, NEW DELHI-110017. 5. THE D.G.M. ( CIVIL) IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. PLOT NO. C-4, DISTRICT CENTRE, SAKET, NEW DELHI-110017. 6. THE MANAGER FINANCE, IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. PLOT NO. C-4, DISTRICT CENTRE, SAKET NEW DELHI-110017 7. THE A.G.M. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. SONE BHAWAN, IST. FLOOR, DAROGA PRASAD RAI PATH, PATNA-1. 8. DY. GENERAL MANAGER, FINANCE IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. SONE BHAWAN, IST. FLOOR, DAROGA PRASAD RAI PATH,PATNA-1. 9. THE D.G.M.. CIVIL IRCON INTERNAJTIONAL LTD. A.P. COLONY, GAYA. 10. M/S RAJA CONSTRUCTION THROUGH MR. BHARAT DEO SINGH YADAV, RESIDENT OF ASHOK NAGAR, RAMPUR, DISTRICT GAYA BIHAR............................ RESPONDENTS. For the Appellant:- Mr. Chandra Shekhar Pd.Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Anil Kumar Upadhya,Advocate For the Union of India :- Mr. S.K.Sharma For Raja Construction:- Mr.Y.V.Giri, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sanjeev Kr.Advocate and Mr. Rajiv Giri Advocate 6 18-04-2009 Heard the parties and perused the order of the writ court dated 23-10-2008. The writ petition was not considered on merit on the issues raised by the petitioner because the writ court noticed that not only the private respondent had been given - 2 - the contract work relating to construction of road but he had substantially executed the same. In that view of the matter it was observed that the writ petition has been relegated to academic discussions only. It was submitted before us that there was no sufficient material for the writ court to hold that the private respondents had substantially executed the contract work except an averment made by the private respondents on affidavit sworn on 20th October, 2008 that the work had been started and earth work and some other works over Rs.50,00000/- ( rupees fifty lakhs ) had been completed. In the records of the present L.P.A. a reply by respondent no.10 to an I.A. contains annexures- R/10-A through which a Joint General Manager of IRCON International Limited has issued a certificate dated 3rd. February,2009 showing that till that date the private respondents had been paid for the works executed to the value of 220.64 lakhs against the total value of the package which is Rs.8,91,91,548.00/- which includes the costs of maintenance of the constructed roads for five years. The certificate further mentions that the work is going on and materials for another two crores are available at site and the - 3 - Naresh concerned package is likely to be completed by June, 2009. In view of materials noticed above, we find ourselves in agreement with the writ court that the work has made considerable progress and the discretionary writ jurisdiction should not be invoked in the present matter at this stage. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ( Shiva Kirti Singh,J) ( Dharnidhar Jha, J)