Patna High Court
M/S Raj Construction Through Its ... vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 24 March, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8955 of 2018
======================================================
M/s Raj Construction Through Its Partner, Md. Aftab Alam Son of Md. Hasan
Haidar, resident of Village- Meenapur, P.S.- Balia Belon, District- Katihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, food and Consumer Protection Department, Govt.
of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies
Corporation, Patna.
4. The Deputy Chief, Transportation, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies
Corporation, Patna.
5. The District Magistrate, Katihar.
6. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Katihar.
7. The Additional Collector, Katihar.
8. The District Transport Officer, Katihar.
9. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Katihar Sadar.
10. The District Supply Officer, Katihar.
11. The Senior Deputy Collector (Legal), Katihar.
12. The District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation,
Katihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ram Binod Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, AAG-5
Mr. Alok Ranjan, AC to AAG-5
For the B.S.F.C. : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Patna High Court CWJC No.8955 of 2018 dt.24-03-2025
2/5
Date : 24-03-2025
We have heard Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, the
learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner/Firm and Mr.
Anjani Kumar, the learned Senior Advocate for the Bihar
State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited.
2. The petitioner's Firm has been blacklisted for
five years, which order of blacklisting is contemplated to
be challenged by the petitioner before the appropriate
authority. The petitioner/Firm shall also challenge the
forfeiture of the Bank guarantee and earnest money
before the appellate authority. These facts have been
recorded in the order passed by this Court on
12.04.2019.
3
. The only challenge of the writ petitioner
presently is thus on the decision of the respondent in
adjusting the outstanding bills against the losses suffered
by the Corporation.
4. Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, the learned Senior
Advocate submitted that the show-cause notice issued to
Patna High Court CWJC No.8955 of 2018 dt.24-03-2025
the Firm does not refer to this contemplated action and
therefore, he was not in a position to challenge or respond
to the assessment of the Corporation about the losses
having been caused to it because of any fault on the part
of the petitioner/Firm. Even otherwise, for taking any
punitive action, which in this case is adjustment of the
bill amounts against earlier payments. Specific notice with
respect to the action proposed to be taken is required to
be given to the contractor. That not having been done,
the order, to that extent, cannot be sustained. That apart,
merely listing the faults of the Firm in storage of food-
grains and a ballpark assessment of the losses of the
food-grains in terms of quantity would not be enough and
the losses are to be quantified for adjusting the
outstanding bills of the petitioner/Firm.
5. To that extent, we have found the notice
issued to the petitioner to be absolutely silent about any
proposed action of adjusting the bills of the petitioner.
6. Thus, the part of the order dated 27.03.2018
Patna High Court CWJC No.8955 of 2018 dt.24-03-2025
passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation,
which directs for adjustment of the bills of the petitioner,
is set aside with the liberty to the Corporation to apprise
the petitioner by way of notice as to the quantification of
the losses against which such bills could be adjusted,
giving reasonable time to the Firm to respond.
7. On perusal of the response of the petitioner, a
fresh order shall be passed by the Managing Director
within a reasonable period of time with respect to
adjustment of bills of the petitioner.
8. If the notice, as directed by us, is issued and
is received by the petitioner within a period of four weeks
and the petitioner responds to it within further period of
two weeks, the Managing Director is expected to pass a
final/reasoned order within next four weeks and the order
shall be communicated to the petitioner forthwith.
9. It is expected that the petitioner shall also
cooperate in the matter.
10. With the aforesaid observation/directions,
Patna High Court CWJC No.8955 of 2018 dt.24-03-2025
the writ petition stands disposed off.
11. Interlocutory application/s, if any, also
stands disposed of.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
avinash/Sunil
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 25.03.2025
Transmission Date
