Patna High Court
Panash Infotech Pvt Ltd vs Chief Secretary on 6 December, 2023
Author: Rajiv Roy
Bench: Chief Justice, Rajiv Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15407 of 2023
======================================================
Panash Infotech Pvt Ltd, situated at 402, S.S. Bihar Apartment, Near Railway
Hospital, Karbigahiya, Patna-1 through its Director Sanjay Kumar, Male,
aged about 47 years, S/o Brajmohan Prasad, R.o- Purushotampur, Maker,
P.S.- Maker, Saran- 841215.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Secretary-Cum-Excise Commission-Cum-IG Registration, Prohibition,
Excise and Registration Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Prohibition, Excise and
Registration Department, Bihar, Patna.
4. District Sub-Registrar, Madhubani, Bihar, Prohibition, Excise and
Registration Department, Madhubani.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Amit, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vikash Kumar, S.C. 11
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY)
Date : 06-12-2023
Heard the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for
the following reliefs:-
(i) to issue a writ/order/ direction in
the nature of certiorari for quashing the Office
Memorandum-Cum-Debarment order bearing letter no.
FW-1702/2/2022-SEC_9-4184 dated 08.08.2023
(Annexure-P8) issued under the signature of Assistant
Patna High Court CWJC No.15407 of 2023 dt.06-12-2023
2/6
Inspector General of Registration, Prohibition, Excise
and Registration Department blacklisting the petitioner
bearing for a period of three years without proper show-
cause notice and without considering response of the
petitioner;
(ii) to issue a writ/order/ direction in
the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to
allow the Petitioner to complete the assigned task as per
RFP dated 14.07.2022 and LOI dated 17.08.2022 issued
for same;
(iii) to pass ex-parte/ad-interim relief
during the pendency of the writ application staying the
operation of order dated 08.08.2023 and direct the
respondents to honour the terms of LOI dated 17.08.2022
and RFP dated 14.07.2022.
3. The facts in narrow compass is/are as
follows:-
4. The Prohibition, Excise and Registration
Department, Bihar, Patna (henceforth for short 'the
Department') had initiated the process for the selection of
vendor for scanning, indexing and uploading of the registration
record. Accordingly, a request for proposal (RFP) was published
Patna High Court CWJC No.15407 of 2023 dt.06-12-2023
3/6
on 14.07.2022.
5. The petitioner-firm also successfully
participated in it which followed the letter of intent (LOI) vide
letter no. 4104 dated 17.08.2022 issued by the Assistant
Inspector General of 'the Department'.
6. The petitioner's case is that he was allotted
work for the Madhubani District and in line with the different
clauses, the respondents were supposed to provide basic
infrastructure for taking up the work which include the rooms,
the chairs, the internet facility as also uninterrupted power
supply beside a person having knowledge of 'Kaithy' language
and for this attention was drawn to the authorities as early as
15.03.2023.
7
. It is the further case of the petitioner that
he was surprised to receive the show cause notice issued vide
letter no. 3924 dated 25.07.2023 by the A.I.G. of 'the
Department' (Annexure P/6) in which he was asked to reply
why 'the Department' should not blacklist the firm for a period
of one year from participation or bidding for projects to be
undertaken by it.
8. The petitioner replied on 02.08.2023
which followed the letter no. 4184 dated 08.08.2023 again
Patna High Court CWJC No.15407 of 2023 dt.06-12-2023
issued under the signature of the A.I.G. of 'the Department' by
which the petitioner firm was debarred for three years from the
date of the issuance of the order.
9. Aggrieved, the present petition.
10. It is the case of the petitioner that while
show cause notice was issued to him asking why the firm should
not be debarred for one year; the final order shows the firm has
been debarred for three years which is an illegal order.
11. It is his further submission that as early
as 15.03.2023, the attention was drawn to the respondents that
the infrastructure has not been made available which is delaying
the work assigned to it and as such, the submission is that even
otherwise the debarment of one year is bad.
12. Learned State Counsel, Mr. Vikash
Kumar, on the other hand, has taken this Court to Annexure-R/2
to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2
to 4, the letter no. 379 dated 23.03.2023 issued by the District
Registration Office, Madhubani pursuant to the office letter no.
1571 dated 20.03.2023 sent by the 'A.I.G.' of 'the Department'
by which information was given that the basic infrastructure
including the room has been provided to the petitioner firm and
alternate arrangement of generator (in case of disruption in
Patna High Court CWJC No.15407 of 2023 dt.06-12-2023
electric supply) is also available. However, the firm has not
provided the details of the employees who will serve and further
has not started the work of indexing.
13. From the aforesaid pleadings which has
not been controverted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner
despite the copy of the counter affidavit having been served
upon him on 23.11.2023 clearly shows that so far his claim that
due to absence of infrastructure, the work could not be started is
a false statement.
14. However, so far as the
debarment/blacklisting part is concerned, the show cause issued
by the A.I.G. of 'the Department' clearly shows that the
petitioner was directed to submit his reply on why the firm
should not be debarred for one year. Instead, the order in
question has been passed by blacklisting it for a period of three
years.
15. Thus, in the considered view of this
Court, when a particular period was incorporated by the A.I.G.
of 'the Department' (one year) while putting the petitioner firm
on notice, the order in question cannot extend the blacklisting
period to three years.
16. In the aforesaid background, so far as the
Patna High Court CWJC No.15407 of 2023 dt.06-12-2023
order vide no. FW-1702/2/2022-SEC_9-4184 passed by the
A.I.G. of 'the Department' (Annexure-P8) is concerned, the
same is modified to the extent that the debarment/ blacklisting
of the petitioner firm shall be limited to the period of one year
for which he was put on notice.
17. The writ petition stands party allowed.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Neha/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 11.12.2023
Transmission Date
