Patna High Court
Gopal Prasad Singh @ Gopal Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 20 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.25824 of 2019
======================================================
Gopal Prasad Singh @ Gopal Singh Son of Ramesh Singh Resident of
Village- Lohanda, P.S.- Sikandra, District- Jamui.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Rural Works Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Lakhisarai.
3. The Engineer-in-Chief cum Additional Commissioner cum Special
Secretary, Rural Works Department, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Chief Engineer-1, Rural Work Division, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Work Department, Work Division,
Munger.
6. The Executive Engineer, Rural Work Department, Sheikhpura.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Kalpana, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pratik Kumar Singh, AC to GA-V
Mr. Ajay, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 20-03-2023
In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the
following reliefs:-
"(i) for quashing letter no. 596 dated
22.5.2014 issued by respondent no. 6
whereby respondent no. 3 has been
informed that action is being taken for
recovery from petitioner and further
recommendation has been made for black
listing the registration of the petitioner,
(ii) for quashing letter no. 1355 dated
11.10.2014 issued under the signature of
Patna High Court CWJC No.25824 of 2019 dt.20-03-2023
Executive Engineer, Rural Works
Department, Sheikhpura, whereby petitioner
has been directed to deposit the amount of
Rs. 10,91,762.00 after adjusting the security
money and other amount against the
agreement for construction of To-3 Shivsona
to Halsi Road being agreement no.
04(PMGSY)/2009-2010 Package No. BR-
19R-061.
(iii) for payment of all the due amount
for the work done by the petitioner with
respect to construction of Shivsona to Halsi
Road being agreement no. 04
(PMGSY)/2009-2010 Package No. BR-19R-
061 according to Measurement Book with
appropriate interest.
(iv) for direction to the respondents to
execute fresh agreement with enhanced rate
in favour of the petitioner and permit the
petitioner to complete the work according to
enhanced estimate for which modified
technical sanction was accorded on 20-04-
2013.
(v) for any other relief / reliefs for
which the petitioner is found entitled in the
facts and circumstances of the case."
2. During pendency of the present petition, petitioner has
filed an interlocutory application while assailing the
blacklisting order dated 31.03.2015. The petitioner is a
contractor and had executed agreement on 30.10.2009 for a
period of five years insofar as execution of construction and
maintenance of (TO3) Shivsona Village to Halsi Road under
PMGSY ( Package no. BR-19R-061).
3. In not executing the awarded work on time the official
respondent proceeded to take action for recovery of certain
Patna High Court CWJC No.25824 of 2019 dt.20-03-2023
amount and adjustment of EMD vide communication dated
22.05.2014 item no. 4 in Annexure-5 is in relation to the
petitioner. Further in Annexure-5 there is a proposal for
blacklisting the petitioner and blacklisting was ordered on
31.03.2015.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
impugned action of recovery and blacklisting are not speaking
decisions. It is further submitted that there is no reference to
issuance of show-cause notice and consideration of the
petitioner's reply insofar as both the actions of the recovery
and blacklisting, therefore, they are liable to be set aside.
5. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent resisted
the aforesaid contentions and submitted that the petitioner had
earlier approached this Court thereafter, invoked remedy
before the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration
Tribunal and Arbitration Tribunal which refused to entertain
Reference Case No. 153 of 2015, hence once again the
petitioner has approached this Court. There is a delay in filing
the writ petition and it is also submitted that by means of
Interlocutory Application blacklisting order has been
challenged. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently
contended that all the formalities have been completed before
Patna High Court CWJC No.25824 of 2019 dt.20-03-2023
impugned action of recovery and blacklisting like issuance of
show-cause notice on more than one occasion and further
paper notification was also undertaken by the official
respondent while issuing notice to the petitioner, therefore,
there is no infirmity in the impugned action of recovery and
blacklisting. It is also submitted that on 12.02.2014 contract
was terminated vide Annexure-B to the conter-affidavit and it
has not been challenged.
6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
7. It is necessary to reproduce Annexure-5 dated
22.05.2014 which reads as under:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.25824 of 2019 dt.20-03-2023
And it is also necessary to reproduce blacklisting order
dated 31.03.2015 which reads as under:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.25824 of 2019 dt.20-03-2023
8. Perusal of the aforesaid decisions, it is crystal clear that
there is no iota of reference to show-cause notice and reply,
even though it is submitted that number of show cause notices
and reply has been received by the official respondents. Both
the impugned action of recovery and blacklisting are
amenable to judicial review as in such circumstances speaking
order should have been passed. Official respondents cannot
improve a document by means of filing counter-affidavit and
contending that large number of show cause notice and other
formalities have been completed. Further it is to be noted that
petitioner has not assailed the order of termination of contract
dated 12.02.2014, merely in not challenging the termination of
contract that does not come in way of challenging recovery
and blacklisting. It is to be noted that blacklisting is for an
indefinite period. Apex Court recently in the case of M/S
Chauhan Builders Raibareli vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh
reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 694 wherein held that
indefinitely blacklisting cannot be ordered. In the light of
these facts and circumstances the petitioner has made out a
prima-facie so as to interfere with the impugned action of
recovery and blacklisting. They are set aside reserving liberty
to the concerned official respondents to proceed in accordance
with law, if it is warranted at this belated stage. Petitioner is at
Patna High Court CWJC No.25824 of 2019 dt.20-03-2023
liberty to invoke appropriate remedy insofar as any disputed
issue is concerned, which is required to be adjudicated.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
( Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Daya/
Himanshu/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 24.03.2023
Transmission Date NA
