Patna High Court
M/S Glr Traders And Industries vs The State Of Bihar on 14 May, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1284 of 2024
======================================================
M/s GLR Traders and Industries having its registered office at IM Jagdish
Lok Apartment, West Boring Canal Road, Patna through its proprietor Pankaj
Kumar Jha, aged 59 years, male, son of Kamal Nath Jha, resident of 77/J,
Anandpuri, P.S.-SK Puri, District-Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Public Health
Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, PHED Bhawan, Bailey
Road, Patna-800015.
2. The Engineer in Chief cum Special Secretary, Public Health Engineering
Department, Government of Bihar, PHED Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna-
800015.
3. The Chief Engineer (Civil), Public Health Engineering Department,
Government of Bihar, PHED Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna-800015.
4. The Superintendent Engineer, Public Health Engineering Zone, Bhagalpur.
5. The Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Bhagalpur
Zone, Bhagalpur.
6. The Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Banka.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Nirbhay Prashant, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Rahi, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 14-05-2025
Heard Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, the learned
Senior Advocate for the petitioner/company and Mr. Alok
Kumar Rahi, the learned Advocate for the State.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court
Patna High Court CWJC No.1284 of 2024 dt.14-05-2025
against the order of debarment as also for the rescission
of the agreement for completing the work. It appears that
when no sufficient progress was made in the work, which
was allotted to him, the petitioner was debarred from
participating in the next bid. However, he was allowed to
continue the work by extending the date. The date was
finally extended till 13.04.2021.
3. The contention of the State is that till the
order of debarment was passed, only 10% of the work
had been done and presently only 36% of the work has
been completed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner,
however, had earlier submitted that the work was
completed to the extent of 90%.
5. Responding to the statement on behalf of the
State that only 36% of the work has been completed up
till now, Mr. Srivastava has submitted that a bare look at
the supplementary counter-affidavit would demonstrate
that such assessment is only based on the analysis of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1284 of 2024 dt.14-05-2025
measurement book as also the payments made to the
petitioner against the bill submitted by it. Since the
amount spent up till now was only 36% of the total
amount allocated for the purpose, therefore, the
assessment of the State is that only 36% to the work has
been done.
6. Nonetheless, with this dispute about the
percentage of work having been completed by the
petitioner, we do not wish to interfere with the order of
recession of the agreement.
7. However, it would be open for the petitioner
to approach the authorities and explain that within the
extended period, maximum work had already been
completed. If such an explanation is made before the
authorities, it shall be considered in the correct
perspective.
8. So far as the order of debarment is
concerned, we find from the order impugned that it is
operative only till the next tender, which prohibition
Patna High Court CWJC No.1284 of 2024 dt.14-05-2025
against the petitioner may not be effective now.
9. There is no specific statement on behalf of
the parties with respect to this aspect of the matter.
10. Nonetheless, when the petitioner would
approach the authorities, it would be expected of the
authorities to explain that the debarment order was only
for the period that the work was not completed and
limited to preventing the petitioner from participating in
the next/ensuing bid.
11. With the aforenoted observations, the
petition stands disposed off.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Bibhash/Rajesh
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 16.5.2025
Transmission Date NA
