IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8729 of 2008 ASHOK KUMAR SINGH Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Prasad, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Vikas Kumar, J.C. to Advocate General Dr. Rajan Kumar, C.G.C. --------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --------- Dated, the 9th September, 2008. We heard the counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition. 2. Although the writ petition might have been filed bona fide but we are afraid, the reliefs, prayed for, do not deserve to be granted by this Court. It is not that no steps have been taken by the State Government for utilization of the fund given by the Government of India for the execution of Eastern Gandak Canal System. Rather, from the documents placed on record by the petitioner himself, it transpires that the process for execution of restoration of Eastern Gandak Canal System including Gandak barrage appurtenants under Rastriya Sam Vikash Yojana started in the year 2004 itself. The first tender process could not be taken to logical conclusion. The fate of second and third tender process was also no different. The fourth - 2 - tender process seems to have started in the month of May, 2007 and substantial progress was made, but then, a writ petition came to be filed before this Court. Although the said writ petition was dismissed on 28th September, 2007, in appeal, the Division Bench of this court, directed the authorities to reconsider the case of Nagarjuna Construction Company Ltd and that of Bihar State Construction Corporation. 3. It further transpires from the available material that Bihar State Construction Corporation has now been wound up. It, thus, seems that for one reason or the other, the tender process could not be taken to logical conclusion. 4. Surely, State must be alive to the position that the project is to be completed by the year 2010 and it needs no emphasis by us that appropriate steps would be taken for completion of the project and utilization of fund. 5. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is disposed of. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil/