Soni Jha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15189 of 2025 ====================================================== Soni Jha W/o Sri Mrityunjay Jha, R/o Kabilpur, Rampur Madan, PS Laheriyasarai, PS Bahadurpur, Dist. Darbhanga 84600, Adhar 262761976028, Mob 8789090226.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Urban housing and development Department, Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 1. urbansec-bih@nic.in 2.

The District Magistrate, Darbhanga. dm-darbhanga.bih@nic.in 3.

The Minicipal Commissioner, Darbhanga Nagar Nigam, Darbhnaga. E darbhanga.ulb@gmail.com ddc-darbhanga.bih@nic.in adm.darbhanga@gmail.com 4.

The Executing Engineer, Nagar Vikas Division cum Darbhanga Nagar Nigam, Darbhanga.

5.

The Assistant Engineer, Nagar Vikas Division cum Darbhanga Nagar Nigam, Darbhanga.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Standing Counsel-28 For the DMC :

Mr. Bindhyachal Rai, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH) 12-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ application has been filed for the following reliefs:- "i. For quash the order letter No.1316 dt26.04.2025 by which the petitioner is debarred to participate in any tender and restore the work order no-858 dt-09.03.24 which is only due to delay of work agreement by the petitioner because

2/8 petitioner's Sasur(Old Father In Law) became PATIENT of Cancer and hospitalized in Medanta Hospital at Patna.

ii. For direction to the respondents to execute the agreement of awarded / allotted work to the petitioner vide work order no-858 dt09.03.2024. iii. For Further restraining the respondents to retender for the same work at high rate to settle the tender to choice bidder under hidden agenda only for undue advantages.

iv. For granting any other relief/s for which the petitioner be found entitled in the eye of law."

3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents issued tender for construction of a road and Nala in Ward no-41 and another Nala and Link Road construction work in Bakarganj Muhalla in Darbhanga district. The petitioner was found qualified, and was awarded work for the same. The respondents invited the petitioner to execute the work agreement and deposit the security amount vide letters dated 12.08.2024 and 16.12.2024. However, the petitioner could not deposit the security amount and execute the agreement. It has been alleged that the respondents knowingly passed the impugned order debarring the petitioner, cancelling the work order and forfeiting the security amount vide Letter No. 1316 dated 26.04.2025 in a hot-haste manner, without giving sufficient opportunity to the

3/8 petitioner to submit his reply. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been preferred before this Court.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not deposit the security deposit and could not execute the agreement because petitioner's father-in-law became cancer patient and was hospitalized. It was further submitted that the impugned action of the respondent authority in debarring the petitioner and cancelling the work order is in violation of Principles of Natural Justice as respondents have not given sufficient opportunity to petitioner to reply.

5. Learned counsels for the respondent submit that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to respond, but no compliance was made on the part of petitioner which reflects his unwillingness to perform, and therefore, the action taken by the respondent authority is justified and reasonable.

6. The limited question that arises for consideration is, whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, any interference is warranted by this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

7. The impugned order dated 26.04.2025, whereby the petitioner was debarred and the work order was canceled is reproduced hereinbelow:

4/8

8. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5, the relevant paragraphs of which are extracted hereinbelow:

"4. That the brief history of the case is that the instant Writ application has been filed for quashing the order Letter No. 1316 dated 26.04.2025 by which the petitioner is debarred to

5/8 participate in any tender and restore the work order No. 858 dated 09.03.2024 which is only due to delay of work agreement by the petitioner because petitioner's Sasur (Old Father in-law) became patient of Cancer and hospitalised in Medanta Hospital at Patna.

5. That it is humbly submitted that the concerned record transpires the fact that pursuant to the published tender notice as well as after adopting the due process, the petitioner has been found qualified and accordingly, the authority concerned, the Municipal Commissioner, Darbhanga Nagar Nigam, Darbhanga vide Letter No. 858 dated 09.03.2024(Annexure-P/2 of the Writ Petition) has approached to the petitioner with a direction to submit agreement in the concerned Office within 15 days (EK PAKHWARA) so that work order would be given. It is pertinent to mention here that the material direction given to the petitioner contained in Letter No.858 dated 09.03.2024 is as follows - "

आपनेनननवदाके साथ41,100/- रपया जमानकयाहै, शेषरानश1,24,064/- रपयाजमानतके रपमेआपकोजमाकरनाहैएवंएकरारनामाभीनकया जानाहै।नवनवदासूचनाके अनुसारएकरारनामाके समयलेवरलाइसेसकीNk;kizfr उपलबधकराना अननवायरहै। अतःआदेशनदयाजाताहैनकजमानतकी शेषरानशबैकगारंटीजोनगरआयुकत, दरभंगानगर ननगम, दरभंगाकेनामसेizfr जत पलेसनकयागयाहै। अथवाखातासंखया- 994301201 इंनडयनबैक, दरभंगा आईएफ०एस०सी०कोडआईडीआईबी000 डी025

6/8 औनलाईनकेमाधयमसेपेमेटकेसाथएकपखवाडाके अनदरएकरारनामाकायरयारलयकोसमनपरतकरेतानक कायानदशननगरतनकयाजासके।ननधानरतअवनधके अंदरएकरारनामावांनछतजमानतकेरानशकेसाथ जमानहींकरनेपरकायरकाआवंटनरदद् परनननवदाके साथजमाजमानतकेरानशजपतकरनलजासकतीहै| "

इसकीसुचनाअलगसेनहींदीजायेगी।

6. That it is humbly submitted that the concerned record also transpires the fact that the direction contained in Letter No. 858 dated 09.03.2024 is well within the knowledge of the petitioner but the petitioner has not taken proper response into the matter and accordingly, the authority concerned, the Executive Engineer, Darbhanga Nagar Nigam, Darbhanga vide Letter No. 239 dated 14.06.2024 and its reminder Letter No. 323(B) dated 12.08.2024 has made request to do needful into the matter but the petitioner has not taken proper response into the matter.

7. It is further humbly submitted that seeing the nature and circumstances of the case, the authority concerned, the Municipal Commissioner, Darbhanga Nagar Nigam, Darbhanga with a view to provide reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, has issued direction vide Letter No. 3735 dated 14.12.2024 (Annexure-P/3 of the writ petition) to the petitioner to submit the concerned Agreement but the petitioner once again has not taken proper response into the matter and accordingly, finding the fact of unwillingness to perform the act into the matter, the authority concerned, the Municipal Commissioner, Darbhanga Nagar Nigam,

7/8 Darbhanga vide Letter No. 1316 dated 26.04.2025 has passed an order against which the petitioner has filed the present writ application before your Lordship."

9. Upon perusal of the impugned order, averments made in the counter affidavit, and materials available on record, it is apparent that despite issuance of several reminders and communications by the respondent authority, the petitioner failed to comply with the directions contained therein. A considerable period has elapsed since issuance of the said communications, yet there has been complete inaction on the part of the petitioner. Such continued non-compliance, even after sufficient notice and opportunity, clearly indicates absence of genuine interest in carrying out the allotted work.

10. Further, no material has been placed on record to demonstrate that the impugned action suffers from illegality, arbitrariness, or mala fides. This Court is, therefore, of the view that the issue before us is required to be answered in the negative. Consequently, we find no merit in the present writ application and the impugned action, having been taken after due notice and opportunity, warrants no interference.

11. Accordingly, the present writ application stands

8/8 dismissed.

12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(Sudhir Singh, J) (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Anushka/- U