Ms G B Construction Represented Through Its Proprietor Bijay Narayan v. Science And Technology
WPC/5684/2017 · 2025-01-06
Gautam Kumar Choudhary
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 10034 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 10034 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 5684 of 2017 M/s G.B. Construction represented through its Proprietor namely Bijay Narayan, son of Late Sarju Prasad, resident of Kurdeg, P.O. Kurdeg, P.S. Kurdeg, District Simdega (Jharkhand). ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Science & Technology Department, at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
2. Director, Science & Technology Department, at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
3. Zonal Manager, National Projects Construction Corporation Limited, having its office at 220/C, Ashok Path, Ashok Nagar, P.O. Ashok Nagar, P.S. Argora, District Ranchi.
4. Chief Manager, Bank of India, Ranchi (Main) Branch, at Albert Ekka Chowk, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi. ... Respondents
--------- CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
--------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate. For the State:
A.C. to A.G For the Respt. No. 3: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respt. No. 4: Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate
Dr. Gyanendra Kumar, Advocate
--------- 05/Dated: 06.01.2025
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in blacklisting the petitioner for a period of three years, forfeiting the security deposit and performance security given by the petitioner.
Since the period for which blacklisting was made was only three years and the said period has elapsed, the challenge to the same has become academic and need not be gone into in the writ petition.
As regards the other two prayers relating to forfeiture of security deposit and performance security are concerned, since the petitioner has a remedy under Clause 25 of the Instruction to Bidders, permitting the petitioner to avail the said remedy for the aforesaid reliefs, this writ petition is disposed of.
(M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) APK/VK