IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM ORDER SHEET Writ Petitic)n (C) Ugen Taslri Ethenpa Versus State of Sikkim 6¢ Anot.her No. 1 ®[\!! 2003 Petitioner/Appe]lant Respondent Order with Signature 07.01.200 Present : Mr. A. K. Upadhyaya, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. P. Wangdi Advocate General with Mr. J. 8. Pradhan, Govt.Advocate for the respondents. en.A.NO.iJ2ng Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Prayer is accepted thus allowing the petitioner to move the main writ petition No.1/2003. Accordingly, misc. case is closed. ELP.No.1/2Lqu Heard M. A. K. Upadhyaya, leaned Counsel for the petitioner. showc:u:euassunt]on;;i;eanbea::Sr:epdrfai:g.r±ihreorres:t°h::e:;:e:: should not be passed by this Court. Notice is made retumable on 24.2.2003. Learned Advocate General submits that the petitioner has no locus standi and apart from that, the work has been awarded to the concerned contractors. The leaned Advocate General further sut)mits that he will raise a preliminary ot]jection with regard to the nraintainatiility of this writ petition. The matter will be examined on 24.2.2003. State respondents are at,I liberty to file counter-affidavit if so advised. Fix it on 24.02.2003 fornecessary orders. A A Office Note as to action (if any) taken on Order Serial No. of Order 2. 24. 2.2003 Order with Signature Present : Mr. A. K Upadhyaya, Advocate forthe petitioner. Mr N. 8. Khatiwada, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. J. 8. Pradhan, Govt.Advocate for the respondents. Heard Mr. A. K. Upadhyaya, learned Counsel Pppeariug for the petitioner and also Mr. N 8. Khatiwada, learned Additiona`l Advocate General assisted by Mr. J. 8. Pradi;n, leaned . Govt.Advocate appearing for the State respondents. submitsT:at¥he#|g#ngta;i;I::::n?edr:;ti;:::t:tdovd°acyate[t:sen:LrsaoL submitted by learned Additional Advocate General st±Pg:¥ that the writ petitioner did not plead the correct and real statements pertaining to the award of the contract in his writ petition. Supporting his statement, the learned Additional Advocate General further submits that the award of the contract work for commissioning of powers of station etc., etc., had already been made by the competent authority State respondents t£¢and in favour of Sunil Kumar Agarwal; Kailash Agarwal and Shankar Agarwal respectivelyon20122002and,the.fl#cationwasfiledbythewrit petitioner on 6.2.2003. It is also submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that, the writ petitioner had suppressed the important and material facts while filing the writ petitionandapanfromthatthewritpctitign;¢i:.d;;§£i:;dbydelay and laches. At the hearing Mr. A. K. Upadhyaya^co:tended that the petitioner desires to anend the writ petition. However, Mr. A. K. Upadhyaya in his usual fairness submitted that the writ petitioner may be allowed to be withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh petition. In view of the above position, the writ petition is dismissed on withdrawal with liberty to the writ petitioner to file a fresh writ petition in the matter if so advised. Office Note as to • action (if ?ny) taken on Order mani Singh ) e 24.02.2