Wednesday, 13, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Indraprastha Security Services Pvt. ... vs The State Of Bihar And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 64 Patna

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 64 Patna
Judgement Date : 5 May, 2025

Patna High Court

Indraprastha Security Services Pvt. ... vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 5 May, 2025

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2928 of 2017
     ======================================================
     Indraprastha Security Services Pvt. Ltd.

                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                       Versus
1.   The State Of Bihar
2.   Department of Health, Government of Bihar - through its Principal Secretary
3.   Superintendent, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :     Mr. Dhananjay Kashyap, Adv.
                                  Mr. Rasika, Adv.
     For the Respondent/s   :     Mr. Nagendra Pd.Yadav-SC-23
     For the State          :     Ms. Vijya Laxmi Srivastava, AC to Sc-23
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

                            ORAL JUDGMENT

      Date : 05-05-2025


                  1. The Writ petition is filed for the following

     reliefs:-

                            (i) To quash and cancel the decision
                            as contained in Memo No. 11968
                            dated      15.09.2016          issued           under
                            signature      of    the      Superintendent,
                            Patna Medical College & Hospital
                            Patna (respondent No. 3) whereby
                            and whereunder the respondent No.
                            3 imposed a penalty of 20% from the
                            monthly bill of the petitioner for the
                            services        rendered           under           the
                            agreement            dated           21.07.2012
 Patna High Court CWJC No.2928 of 2017 dt.05-05-2025
                                           2/8




                                between the respondent No. 3 and
                                the petitioner.
                                (ii) To quash and cancel the Memo
                                No. 607 dated 18.01.2017 issued
                                under signature of respondent no. 3
                                whereby and whereunder he has
                                directed for deduction @ 10% from
                                the monthly bill of January, 2017.
                                (iii) To quash and cancel the Memo
                                No. 1335 dated 08.02.2017 issued
                                under signature of the respondent
                                No. 3 directing deduction of @ 10%
                                from the monthly bill of February,
                                2017.
                                (iv) To direct respondent No. 3 to
                                make          payment      of    the      entire
                                deducted amount from the monthly
                                bills of the petitioner together with
                                interest @ 18% per annum.
                                (v) To pass such other order/orders,
                                direction/directions        may    deem      fit
                                and       proper      in   the    facts     and
                                circumstances of the case.


                    2. The brief facts culled out from the Writ

       petition are that the petitioner is a Private Limited

       Company incorporated under the Companies Act.

       Patna Medical College and Hospital (PMCH)/ the 3 rd
 Patna High Court CWJC No.2928 of 2017 dt.05-05-2025
                                           3/8




       respondent invited tenders for selection of a cleaning

       agency         for    the     upkeep           work   of   cleaning    and

       maintenance of the toilets, urinals, baths, wash

       basins, floor area and campus of Patna Medical

       College & Hospital (PMCH). The petitioner was one of

       the bidders and was selected. Pursuant to this, the

       Superintendent of PMCH and the petitioner entered

       into an agreement dated 21.01.2012. As per the

       terms of the agreement, the work was initially

       assigned to the petitioner for a period of one year,

       but a provision was made for its continuation if the

       performance was satisfactory.

                    3. The 3rd respondent issued work order vide

       Letter No. 1270 dated 24.01.2012 addressed to all

       agencies, in which the work allotted to the petitioner

       was also included. The petitioner company rendered

       services in accordance with the terms of the

       agreement to the satisfaction of PMCH authorities.

       However, the 3rd respondent issued a Letter vide

       Memo No. 2381 dated 16.02.2016, which reveals

       that      based        on      a     news        paper     report     dated

       15.02.2016

, a spot inspection was conducted by the Patna High Court CWJC No.2928 of 2017 dt.05-05-2025

respondent No. 3.. Further, the respondent No. 3

called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why

20% of the monthly bill for February, 2016 shall not

be deducted (Annexure-3). In response, the

petitioner submitted a detailed reply vide its Letter

reference No. 1545 of 2016 dated 19.02.2016,

denying all allegations and also submitted that bio-

medical waste was left at certain places by public

and nurses of the hospital and that they do not take

trouble to put the bio-medical wastes in the dustbins

provided at the prescribed places.

4. Further, the petitioner received an Office

Order contained in Memo No. 11968 dated

15.09.2016, where there was a specific direction to

deduct 20% from the monthly bill of February 2016

by way of penalty.

5. It is specific contention of the Learned

counsel for the petitioner that the deduction of 20%

of the amount is illegal and the respondent cannot

go beyond the terms of agreement executed

between them. As per agreement (Annexure-2) and

the work order, the maximum amount that can be Patna High Court CWJC No.2928 of 2017 dt.05-05-2025

deducted in case sanitation system is not maintained

properly would be a fine of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-

only and no specific percentage of deduction was

mentioned in agreement.

6. It is also contended by the Learned

counsel for the petitioner that principles of natural

justice were violated in the case, as the impugned

orders of deduction were passed by the respondent

without issuing any notice. Therefore, prayed to

allow the Writ petition by quashing the impugned

orders.

7. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by

the 3rd respondent admitting about the agreement

which was executed between 3 rd respondent and the

petitioner.

8. The counter affidavit further disclose that

there is absolutely no illegality in the impugned

order dated 15.09.2016, as it was passed after

issuing several notices to the petitioner regarding

unsatisfactory work of the petitioner agency.

9. It is further contended by the Learned

counsel for the respondent that several complaints Patna High Court CWJC No.2928 of 2017 dt.05-05-2025

were received against the petitioner, against poor

services. Subsequently, a spot inspection was

conducted by the Superintendent of Patna Medical

College Hospital (PMCH), Patna and during the

inspection, many deficiencies were detected. It is

also submitted that daily newspaper "DB Star" dated

16.02.2016 was published an article which clearly

displayed that bio-waste was found scattered in the

office area of Superintendent, PMCH, Patna and also

in front of emergency ward as well as near Hathua

ward.

10. Upon spot inspection, the Superintendent

of PMCH, Patna found this to be true and, thereafter

issued Memo No. 2381 dated 16.02.2016, directing

the service provider to submit an explanation within

24 hours and in default why the allotted work should

not be cancelled.

11. The counter affidavit further disclose that

dated 18.01.2017, Memo No. 1335 dated 08.03.2017

(Annexure 6 & 7) respectively sought an explanation

twice from the petitioner agency, for non-compliance Patna High Court CWJC No.2928 of 2017 dt.05-05-2025

with the terms and conditions of the agreement,

pursuant to it, the impugned order was passed.

12. It is also contention of the Learned

counsel for the respondent that in the agreement it

is specifically mentioned that "in the case of the

work executed is not to the satisfaction of PMCH,

Deputy Superintendent PMCH, shall issue a show

cause notice to the 2nd party to comply conditions as

mentioned in the agreement, in case of non-

compliance, the 1st party may terminate the

agreement and also can forfeit any amount to 2 nd

party."

13. Heard the Learned counsel for the

petitioner as well as the Learned counsel for the

respondents. Perused the record.

14. On perusal of the record, i.e. Annexure-2,

it is evident that there is a specific clause which

reads as follows: "In case the sanitation system is

not maintained properly, a fine of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs/-

10,000/- can be imposed by the undersigned".

15. On perusal of the entire agreement, it is

evident that the maximum fine amount which can be Patna High Court CWJC No.2928 of 2017 dt.05-05-2025

imposed against the petitioner is Rs. 5,000/- to

10,000/-. Admittedly, without issuing any notices, the

deductions were made as per the impugned order.

Therefore, this Court is of the considerable view that

the principles of natural justice were violated and the

respondent high-handedly deducted 10% and 20% of

the amount from the petitioner which is illegal and

arbitrary. In view of the above discussion, the

impugned order dated 15.09.2016 is hereby

quashed.

16. In result, the Writ petition is allowed.

(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J) Manish/-

AFR/NAFR              NAFR
CAV DATE              N/A
Uploading Date        09.05.2025
Transmission Date     09.05.2025
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter