Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 123 (MEG)

Bhaskar Jyoti Barman v. State Of Meghalaya

2015-10-27

S.R.SEN, T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT : T. Nandakumar Singh, J. 1. Heard Ms. P. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. A.H. Hazarika, learned GA appearing for the respondents No. 1-3 and Ms. Maya Devi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4. 2. By this writ petition the petitioner is assailing the work order being No. DSCA 18/2013/209 dated 14th July 2015 awarded to the respondent No. 4. A copy of the impugned order dated 14th July 2015 is available at Annexure-VIII to the writ petition. On perusal of the work order, it is clear that the term of the work order was only up to September 2015. This court had only passed an interim order dated 14.09.2015 that "In the meantime, the said respondent No. 4 shall not be allotted any further work". 3. Mr. A.H. Hazarika, learned GA appearing for the respondents No. 1-3 submits at Bar that the Director, Directorate of Food Civil Supply and Consumer Affairs, Horse Shoe Building, Lower Lachumiere, Shillong - 1 had already issued a new Notice Inviting Tender (For short "NIT") for the supply of sugar vide letter of the Director, Directorate of Food Civil Supply and Consumer Affairs, Horse Shoe Building, Lower Lachumiere, Shillong - 1 dated 23.09.2015. Mr. A.H. Hazarika, learned GA for the respondents No. 1-3 placed a copy of the said letter before this court dated 23.09.2015 and marked 'X' for identification and put in the file of this present writ petition. On bare perusal of the new "NIT" it is clear that the present writ petition has become infructuous inasmuch as the term of the impugned work order had already expired in the month of September 2015 and new "NIT" for the same work had already been issued. Accordingly, so far as the present case is concerned, the interim order dated 14.09.2015 is hereby made absolute. However, since the new "NIT" had already been issued, the party may participate in the new "NIT" by submitting their respective bids. This court also further made it clear that the respondent No. 4 shall not be allowed to continue to supply sugar on the basis of the impugned work order. 4. With these observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.