IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7897 of 2011 Jawahar Lal Sharma, Son of Late Dinkar Sharma, resident of Village- Paithan Patti, P.S. Thawe, District-Gopalganj. ………Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Superintendent Engineer, Road Construction Department, Saran Path Circle, Hajipur. 4. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Gopalganj. 5. The Additional Divisional Officer, Road Division, Hathua, Gopalganj. 6. The Junior Engineer, Road Division Mirganj-2, Gopalganj. 7. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj. 8. The Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj. 9. Mahant Padam Das @ Tona Das, son of not known to the petitioner, resident of Village- Barwa Math, P.S. Kateya, District- Gopalganj. ….Respondents. ----------- 2. 04. 05. 2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 1. This is a petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give protection for receiving the articles which has purchased by the petitioner by open Government bid dated 12. 04. 2010, but the article has not been received by the petitioner due to threat given by private respondent no. 9. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Road Construction Department, Gopalganj, after constructing of new bridge offered for sale through open bid the unutilized articles of old bridge on Jharhi River. The 2 petitioner being a successful bidder deposited Rs. 53,000/- the bid amount. The petitioner has not received the entire articles of the old bridge due to fear and threat of Respondent no. 9 who has criminal antecedent and for which he has filed petition before the Superintendent of Police. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is facing hardship and financial loss because no appropriate steps has been taken regarding co-operation of the respondents for receiving the aforesaid articles for which the petitioner is legally entitled. 3. However, it has been submitted the Additional Divisional Officer, Road Division,(respondent no. 5) written a letter to the Junior Engineer, Road Division, Gopalganj (respondent no. 6) to get the article removed under the supervision of respondent no. 6. 4. Having regard to the facts, the grievance of the petitioner with regard to his claim over bid property being a successful bidder and has deposited the amount, but the total bid articles has not been received by him. However, there is nothing in the writ petition that the petitioner ever approached the authority to receive the article or ever filed any petition before Superior authority or the authority 3 concerned are not providing any cooperation. However, it a case of being a successful bidder. However, the petitioner has never approached the higher authority of the Road Construction Department i.e. either the Superintendent Engineer or the Executive Engineer of the Road Construction Department under whose direction the bid was conducted. It is also not the case that even when petitioner approached the authority are not allowing to provide or collect bid article. 5. Hence having regard to the facts there is no statutory violation or there is no allegation that authorities concerned are not providing the articles nor there is any representation filed by the petitioner before the authority concern under whose order bid was conducted. 6. In my opinion, the writ petition is not maintainable. However, the petitioner may move the superior authority like Superintendent Engineer or the Executive Engineer, of the Road Construction Department, for remove the articles for which he is a successful bidder. If the petitioner moves the authority then the authority concern shall cooperate to get the bid article. 7. With the above observations/direction, the writ 4 petition is disposed of. m.p. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)