- (1.) HEARD learned for the parties.
(2.) THE allegation of the writ petitioner is that the advertisement 'su.ja.sa.vi -24797 (bhawan) 0809', which has been published in the daily newspaper 'Dainik Jagaran' at page 10 of its Ranchi edition dated 4th October, 2008, was never issued by the State Government for the work referred in the said advertisement. Yet, the said advertisement has been published which is absolutely unauthorized and illegal and by this false advertisement, the work contract was awarded by one of the respondents to the contractor. The learned A.A.G. has also placed on record yet another copy of page 10 of the same newspaper 'Dainik Jagaran' dated 4th October, 2008 published from Ranchi itself, wherein the advertisement referred above is not finding place and in place of that, another advertisement, being 'su.ja.sa.vi -24809 (police) 0809', is published. According to the petitioner, it appears that the advertisement (Annexure1) may have been published in one copy of the newspaper, whereas same advertisement has not been published in all copies of the newspaper.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State submitted in the counter affidavit that advertisement (Annexure1) was not issued by the department concerned of the State, whereas advertisement (Annexure5) was certainly issued by the concerned department of the State. However, in the counter affidavit on behalf of the State Government filed on 4th May, 2012, in para 10, it has been stated that "....... all the allegations made in the writ petition are based on surmises because the work has already been completed, therefore, the question of embezzlement, fraud and corrupt practices does not arise  ;