Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

M/S Shiva Engineers And Developers And ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 9 May, 2018

Author: Ajay Kumar Mittal

Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH

                                                                 CWP No. 11631 of 2018
                                                                 Decided on : 09.05.2018

M/s Shiva Engineers & Developers and another
                                                                           . . . Petitioners
                                        Versus
Union of India and others
                                                                        . . . Respondents

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,
             ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA

PRESENT: Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate,
         for the petitioners.
                                 ****
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, A.C.J. (Oral)

The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus, for directions to the respondents to formally allot the works of construction of "Culvert over River/Nallah at Bharopal, Darya Mansoor, Kakkar FWD, Kashi Barman, Rania and Singrama Nallah along Indo-Park Border in Amritsar and Gurdaspur Sector in Punjab" vide Tender NIT No.03/CE/BFZ/EE(P)-1/2017-18, 04/EE/BFD-II/ASR/2017-18, dated 12th March, 2018 and construction work of "Culvert FRZ Hussaniwala GG1 GG3 SS Wala NS Wala 5 Nos Box Culverts and Tapu 1 No Pipe Culert along Indo-Pak Border in Ferozpur and Abohar Sector of Punjab" vide NIT 04/CE/BFZ/EE(P)- I/2017-18, 11/EE/BFD-V/CPWD/FZR/2017-18/1 in favour of the petitioners, in regard to which the financial bids of the petitioners had been accepted by the respondent-Department.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners states that he may be allowed to withdraw the present writ petition, as the grievance of the petitioners has been redressed and the work has been allotted to them.

3. Dismissed as withdrawn.



                                                  (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
                                                  ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

                                                 (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA)
May 09 2018                                               JUDGE
J.Ram

Whether speaking/reasoned:   Yes/No
Whether Reportable:          Yes/No



                                      1 of 1
                   ::: Downloaded on - 13-05-2018 15:00:10 :::