IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4015 of 2009 MAA JAGDAMBIKA CONSTRUCTION PVT LIMITED, Karma Road, Aurangabad, P.S. Aurangabad Town, District – Aurangabad, Bihar through its Director Shri Rajeshwar Singh, son of late Mundrika Singh, Karma Road, Aurangabad. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Engineer in Chief (Mid), Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Engineer-in-Chief (North), Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Deputy Secretary-cum-Internal Financial Adviser, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 6. The Superintending Engineer, Flood Control & Monitoring Circle, Sichai Bhawan, Patna. 7. The Executive Engineer, Office of the Engineer-in-Chief, Koshang, Patna. 8. The Executive Engineer, Flood and Drainage Division, Lalganj, Vaishali, Dist. Vaishali at Hajipur. 9. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Muzaffarpur. ----------- For the petitioner: M/S. Rajendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate, Rajeev Kumar Singh and Onkar Kumar. For the State: Mr. J P Karn, AAG 9 and Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, AC to AAG 9. ------- 11. 08.12.2009 A categorical stand and statement has been made by the respondent State authorities that the dispute raised with the regard to the work in question has already been awarded on the earlier contractors by extending the period of works given to them. Existing agreement was extended with adjustment of work in question for which there is provision under clause 12 of the said agreement. This is also evident from annexure-1 to the writ application which became a subject matter of challenge. The order in question relates to the month of March, 2009. - 2 - The final stand therefore of the State is that the work stands awarded and may be completed by now looking at the time- frame in question and therefore, no order need to be passed in this writ application. This stand of the State is being denied by learned senior counsel representing the petitioner but in absence of any evidence in this regard, it is only a statement at the bar. The writ application has therefore become infructuous. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)