IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1525 of 2005 DINESH SINGH, S/O CHHATRAPATI SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BANA, P.S. KHIZERSARAI, DISTT. GAYA…………………..PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GAYA, DISTT. GAYA. 2. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER-CUM- CERTIFICATE OFFICER NIMCHAK BATHANI DISTT. GAYA. 3. THE CIRCLE OFFICER KHIZER SARAI, DISTT. GAYA………………………..RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : Mr. Ravindra Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ram Das Singh, A.C. to S.C.-12 ----------- 02/ 18.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents State of Bihar and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the entire proceeding of Certificate Case No.01 of 2001-02 pending before the Sub-divisional Officer- cum-Certificate Officer, Nimchak Bathani in the district of Gaya and also for a direction to the respondents to return the bid amount of Rs.67,000.00 with interest to the petitioner which was deposited by him and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for collection of fees for Bus Stand tender notice was published in the year 1999-2000, whereafter several bids were filed and petitioner was the highest bidder and he was directed by the authorities orally to pay 50 per cent amount, which the petitioner paid but in spite of that neither any agreement was 2 executed for the said purpose nor work order was issued by the authorities. It is further claimed by the petitioner that in these circumstances petitioner sent lawyer’s notice dated 07.02.2002 (Anneuxre-1) to the District Magistrate, Gaya and Circle Officer, Khizer Sarai (Gaya) but instead of answering the said notice Certificate Case No.01 of 2001-02 was initiated against the petitioner and notice dated 25.05.2004 (Annexure-2) was sent to him, but for filing his objection/reply he required copy of the agreement and hence he filed a representation dated 05.11.2004 (Anneuxre-3) before the said Circle Officer for sending him a copy of the work order as well as a copy of the agreement paper but nothing was supplied to him. 4. From arguments of learned counsel for the parties as well as the materials on record it is quite apparent that the entire claim of the petitioner is absolutely frivolous and baseless, as neither he has produced any paper to show that he was the highest bidder or he was directed by the authorities to pay any amount or he had paid any amount before the authority concerned. It is also admitted by the petitioner that no work order was issued by the authorities nor any agreement was executed and hence there was no occasion for the petitioner to file an application before the authority concerned on 05.11.2004 (Annexure-3) for obtaining copies of the work order and agreement paper. 5. Thus it is quite apparent that only to 3 circumvent the proceeding of the certificate case in accordance with law, the entire story has been concocted by the petitioner. Accordingly, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)