2025:JHHC:36846-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6967 of 2025 Prabhakar Kumar Trivedi, S/o Srikant Trivedi, R/o PHED Colony, PO & PS-Kanke, Ranchi ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Building Construction Department, Doranda Ranchi 3. The Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Building Division No.-1, Morabadi, Ranchi 4. The Superintending Engineer, Building Construction Department, Chotanagpur Circle, Line Tank Road, Ranchi 5. M/s. Gokul Constructions, through its partner Ram Sanehi Prasad, S/o Arun Kumar, having office-cum-residence at Bajra Bariyatu, Hehal, Ranchi 6. Matrika Constructions and Developers, through its partner- Sushant Kumar, S/o Suresh Prasad, having office-cum-residence at Tagore Hill Road, Morabadi, PO & PS-Bariatu, District-Ranchi … … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Sah, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, GA-I ----- Order No. 04 Dated: 09.12.2025 The instant writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to cancel the tender under Tender Reference No. BCD/Div.No.-1/, Ranchi/36/2024-25 dated 03.09.2024 as well as to disqualify the L1 and L2 bidders for non-fulfilling the eligibility criteria and for submitting improper documents. Further prayer has been made to restrain the concerned respondents from awarding the work order in favour of any of the private respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the State respondents states that the writ petition has been rendered infructuous given the fact that the tender in question was floated for the works which was required to be completed within four months and the said period is already over. 2025:JHHC:36846-DB 2 3. It would be noticed that the instant petition in fact was filed on 26.05.2025 by which time the tender had already been awarded which would be evident from paragraph nos. 14 and 18 of the instant petition, which read as under: “14. That the petitioner after getting to know about the said discrepancies, immediately represented before the respondent no. 4 vide letter dated 26.09.2024 to set up an enquiry on the said information regarding incomplete documentations of the respondent nos. 5 and 6. 18. That despite issuance of legal notice, no reply was given from the respondents end and the petitioner came to know that the work order has been issued to the L1- respondent no. 5, although the said information has not been collected officially by the petitioner but from the work in progress the petitioner got information that the work order has been issued but till date the work has not been completed.” 4. Since the work in question already stands awarded and has probably been completed, we see no reason to entertain the instant writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) December 09, 2025 Manish/Ritesh/N.A.F.R Uploaded on 10.12.2025