IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.308 of 2010 SHEO KUMAR SINGH SON OF SRI JAGARNATH ROY, RESIDENT OF LALJI TOLA, NEAR DEVI ASTHAN, P.S. GANDHI MAIDAN, TOWN AND DISTT.- PATNA. . . . . . PETITIONER-APPELLANT Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE (CIVIL) SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION AND BORADCASTING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER-I (CIVIL) CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WING, ALL INDIA RADIO, 6th FLOOR, SUCHANA BHAWAN, C.G.O. COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (CIVIL) PRASAR BHARTI, ALL INDIA RADIO, CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WING, DOORDARSHAN BHAWAN, 4th FLOOR, GOLF GREEN, KOLKATA-700095. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CIVIL) CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WING, ALL INDIA RADIO, PATNA. . . . . RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2/ 04.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears on behalf of the respondents. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No.17732 of 2009, and is aggrieved by order dated 13.01.2010, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant very fairly submits that the work in question has been executed during the pendency of the proceedings in this Court which renders the present appeal infructuous. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submits that the following portion of the order of the learned Single Judge is not accurate statement of law and, therefore, should not bind him in future. “The other dimension pointed out is that in terms of the provisions of the CPWD Code and specially para 17.3.4 of the manual which has been annexed with the counter affidavit as Annexure-R/1, work is to be assigned only to State PWD contractors and thereafter the work is to be carried out. That is the rule and not the exception. The exception is that 2 Additional Director General of the region has powers to relax the same and permit other contractors of the State to participate but that can only be done if the relaxation is issued at that level”. We make it clear that we have not applied our minds to the merits of the case. This order should not be taken to be expression of our views in affirmance or otherwise of the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly disposed of as having become infructuous. Uday/ ( S. K. Katriar , J. ) ( S. P. Singh, J. )