M/S Kumar Abhishek Construction v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15373 of 2021 ====================================================== M/s Kumar Abhishek Construction Ashok Nagar, Bhatt Bigha, Gaya through its Managing Partner, Sanjay Singh, aged about 52 years, S/o- Late Jagdish Singh, Vill. and P.O.- Bodhibigha, P.S.- Dumariya, District- Gaya, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Empowered Standing, Committee headed by The Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Engineer in Chief Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4.

The Chief Engineer-1, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

5.

The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Circle- Gaya, District- Gaya.

6.

The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Imamganj Division, District- Gaya.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, Advocate Mr. Umashankar Singh, Advocate Ms. Mamta Vijaya, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Kumar Alok, SC Mr. Satyeshwar Prasad, AC to SC ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) 13-07-2023 In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):- "I. For issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders and/or direction/directions in the nature of certiorari for

2/4 quashing the reasoned order contained in Memo no. 1539 dated 07.12.2019 (Annexure-22 to the writ petition) by the Executive Engineer, RWD, Imamganj Division, Gaya by which contractual agreement under Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojana (herein referred as P.M.G.S.Y) of package No.-BR-12R-223 for construction of road from Raniganj to Barhi Khap was terminated and total liability upon petitioner was calculated and fixed Rs. 77,27,848/- (Seventy Seven lacs Twenty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred forty Eight)) out of which security deposit of Rs. 7,60,000/- + amount of Jamanat Rs. 7,48,247/- + performance deposit Rs. 3,74,124/ + Amount of A.P.G. Rs. 10,25,000/- = Total Rs. 29,07,371/- was forfeited and the petitioner was directed to deposit the remaining Rs. 48,20,477/- through the Bank draft in the office of respondent concerned.

II. For quashing of consequential reasoned order contained in memo no. 3347 dated 14.09.2020 (Annexure-28 to the writ petition) by which the firm of petitioner has been blacklisted for the period of 10 years.

III. For quashing the order dated 05.10.2020 (Annexure- 29 to the writ petition) passed by Empowered Standing Committee by which the Committee was pleased to reject the Representation (Appeal) preferred by the petitioner against termination order contained in memo no. 539 dated 07.12.2019.

IV. For issuance of direction to refund the entire to forfeited money/Security Money deposited by the petitioner and dues of petitioner along with compound interest pendent and future @ 18% per annum to the petitioner. V. For any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled in the eye of law."

2. We are interfering only in respect of blacklisting the petitioner for a period of ten (10) years. Matter was heard from time to time, asking the petitioner to furnish his reply to the blacklisting notice. The petitioner is stated to have submitted his reply, however, copy is not made available. On the other

3/4 hand, custodian of the original records - respondents made statement that office records were burnt in a fire accident on 11.05.2022. Thereafter, an F.I.R. was registered on 12.05.2022. In this backdrop, in order to render justice, the impugned blacklisting order dated 07.12.2019 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the concerned official respondent to proceed afresh in issuing a detailed specific notice of blacklisting the petitioner in the light of Apex Court's decision in the case of UMC Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Food Corporation of India and Another, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 551 (para-13 & 14) read with Isolators And Isolators Through Its Proprietor Mrs. Sandhya Mishra vs. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 444 (para-20).

3. In this regard, the official respondent is hereby directed to issue a specific notice within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter, petitioner is permitted to file his explanation to the show cause notice within one month from the date of receipt of show cause notice. Consequentially, the Competent Authority is hereby directed to pass a detailed speaking order insofar as blacklisting is concerned and communicate the same.

4/4

4. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order.

5. The termination of contract and forfeiting EMD, if any, the petitioner is at liberty to invoke arbitration remedy, if it is available to him.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J) (Jitendra Kumar, J) Shoaib/- U