IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6862 of 2009 JAI MATA DI INVESTMENT COMPANY . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Dronachariya, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Kumar Alok, SC-19 For the Intervenor:- Minu Kumari, Adv. For the Patna Municipal Corporation:- Mr. Bishavibhuti Kumar, Adv. -------------- 4. 14.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State, for the Patna Municipal Corporation and for the Intervenor. The intervenors represent persons who have submitted bids in response to the expression of interest advertisement issued by the State of Bihar at Annexure- 10 for maintenance of old and upcoming public toilets. The controversy in this writ application does not appear to be concerning the intervenors in view of the clear stand taken by the State of Bihar where the intervenors form a complete different class not falling for consideration in the writ application. The petitioner claims award of works for construction of 13 public toilets by the Patna Municipal Corporation vide an administrative decision dated 5.9.2008, duly communicated to it in response to which the petitioner on 19.5.2008 sought design specification etc. to enable it to commence the work. The submission 2 on behalf of the petitioner is that in pursuance of Annexure-10 without supplying him the design, the State Government is now proposing to include these 13 toilets in the advertisement inviting expression of interest for construction of now public toilets. Counsel for the State submits from Paragraph- 8 of the counter affidavit that the State in no uncertain terms takes the stand before the Court that Annexure-10 inviting application for expression of interest with regard to maintenance of existing and upcoming toilets does not include these 13 toilets advertised and settled by the Patna Municipal Corporation. True to itself, the Patna Municipal Corporation refuses to accept responsibility in the case by even filing a counter affidavit and taking a stand at loggerheads with the State Government. The stand of the Patna Municipal Corporation is unfortunate and displays complete non-application of mind. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be misconceived in view of the stand of the State. The Patna Municipal Corporation is therefore directed to proceed in accordance with the order dated 5.9.2008 and supply the design specification to the petitioner as requested for by it on 19.56.2008 in accordance with law. 3 In view of the aforesaid discussion, that the advertisement issued by the State Government with regard to the maintenance of existing and upcoming toilets has no relevancy to the 13 public toilets offered by the Corporation to the petitioner for construction, quite obviously the State Government is at liberty to go ahead with its own advertisement. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)