IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.11896 OF 2009 KUMAR SAROJ VS STATE & ORS ----------- 2 14.09.2009. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was allowed construction of road under MMGSY from Amirganj to Banauli Road for the year 2006-07 in the district of Nalanda vide agreement no. 91 F2 of 2006-07. The work was to be completed in six months expiring on 22.9.2007. The petitioner very fairly states that in spite of best effort, he was not able to complete the project on account of various factors enumerated in paragraphs 7 and 13 of the writ petition. He states that raiyati lands of villagers spread on the route of the proposed road have not yet been cleared by the State officials. Similarly, he has cited other reasons regarding bad approach road etc. He submits that nevertheless he has completed 50 percent of the work. Learned counsel for the State while referring to various clauses of agreement, namely, clauses 2, 5 and 12A submits that petitioner’s case would be dealt with the provisions discussed in these clauses agreed between the parties. As the petitioner has limited his prayer for a direction to respondents to consider his representation for closure of tender, the instant writ petition is disposed of with observation that if he files a fresh representation to this effect along with a copy of this order before Superintending engineer, Rural Works Division, Work Circle, Patna, respondent no.5, he would consider the same and pass speaking order preferably within five weeks thereof. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)