Patna High Court
Manoj Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 11 September, 2025
Author: Alok Kumar Sinha
Bench: Alok Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8748 of 2025
======================================================
Manoj Kumar, S/o Bhagyanarayan Bhagat R/o-Gopalapur, Khoripakar,
Bishunpur, Kalayan, Muzaffarpur, Bihar 843125.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Additional Chief Secretary, Public Health
Engineering Department, Government of of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department,
Government of of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department,
Motihari, Dist- East Champaran.
4. The Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Bettiah,
Dist- West Chamaparan.
5. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Bettiah,
Dist- West Chamaparan.
6. The Junior Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Bettiah, Dist-
West Chamaparan.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Advocate
Mr.Kumar Satyam, Advocate
Mr.Prakash Raj, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Vikash Kumar, SC-11
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 11-09-2025
In the instant Writ petition, petitioner has prayed
for the following relief(s):
"(I) For issuance of an appropriate
writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the
Memo no. 31 dated 18.01.2021 (Annexure-8)
issued by the respondent No. 4 by which the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8748 of 2025 dt.11-09-2025
2/8
petitioner who is a contractor has been blacklisted
for indefinite time period for violation of clause 3.3
and 4.8 of General Condition of Contract holding
that the petitioner has not completed the work
within the time and petitioner not given any reply
to the letter bearing memo No. 180 dated
26.06.2020
, memo No. 209 dated 30.07.2020,
memo No. 27 dated 06.01.2021, memo No. 2000
dated 02.12.2020, memo No. 1430 dated
12.08.2020 and memo No. 1161 dated 22.06.2020.
(II) For issuance of an order, direction
or a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ for directing the commanding respondent to
make payment of balance amount of Rs. 14.0131
Lakh (Fourteen Lakh One thousand Three Hundred
and Ten only) with 18% of interest rate as the same
has been imposed by the concerned authority vide
memo No. 493 dated 25.04.2021 (Annexure-2A)
for Extension of Time but in response of the letter
dated 27.07.2021 the respondent No. 3 written
letter bearing memo No. 177 dated 27.07.2021 to
(Executive Engineer) issued letter bearing memo
No. 18 dated 14.08.2021 whereby & whereunder
(Junior Engineer) the L.D. imposed to the
petitioner may be reconsidered.
(III) Further for any other relief/s for which
the petitioner be found entitled in the eye of law."
Patna High Court CWJC No.8748 of 2025 dt.11-09-2025
2. It is necessary to reproduce Annexure- P8, dated
18.01.2021 and it reads as under:-
"dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark dk dk;kZy;]
yksd LokLF; izeaMy] csfr;kA
dk0vk0la0 -----31----@ csfr;k] fnukad 18@1@2021
fu"p; ;kstuk varxZr laosnd Jh t; ckck HkksysukFk] xksikyiqj]
[kksjhikdM+] fo"kquiqj dy;ku] lkgscxat] eqtQ~Qjiqj ls ,djkjukek
la[;k&SBD-112/2019-20 ds }kjk iz[k.M&cxgkWa&2] iapk;r&ukSjaxh;k njnjh
ds okMZ la[;k&01] 02] 03 ,oa 06 esa gj ?kj uy dk ty fuekZ.k dk;Z gsrq
,djkjukek fd;k x;k Fkk] ftlesa mUgsa i=kad&683] fnukad&06-03-2020 }kjk
dk;kZns"k fuxZr fd;k x;k FkkA ,djkfjr dk;Z iw.kZ gksus dh frfFk 05-09-2020
FkhA ijUrq muds }kjk mDr LFky dk dk;Z vc&rd iw.kZ ugha fd;k gS rFkk dk;Z
izkjaHk djus ds iwoZ ;kstu losZ{k.k rFkk fMtkbZu ,oa MªkbZx vuqeksnu gsrq bl
dk;kZy; esa tek ugha fd;k x;k gSA
lgk;d vfHk;ark] yksd LokLF; voj izeaMy] jkeuxj ds i=kad&180]
fnukad&26-06-2020 ,oa i=kad&209] fnukad&30-07-2020 rFkk bl dk;kZy; dk
i=kad&27] fnukad&06-01-2021] i=kad&2000] fnukad&02-12-2020] i=kad&1430]
fnukad&12-08-2020 ,oa i=kad&1161] fnukad&22-06-2020 }kjk Hkh laosnd Jh
t; ckck HkksysukFk dks funsf"kr fd;k x;k ijUrq muds }kjk u dsoy funsZ"kksa dh
vuns[kh dh xbZ oj.k ,djkjukek "krksZa dk Hkh ?kksj mYya?ku fd;k x;kA ftlds
dkj.k bu {ks=ksa ds fuoklh;ksa dks bl ;kstuk ds ykHk ls oafpr j[kk x;kA
Qyr% ,djkjukek dh General Condition of Contract ds dafMdk
3-3 ,oa 4-8 ds vkyksd esa vkidks nks'kh ?kksf'kr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa foHkkxh; vkns"k
la[;k&6,@fo03&105@2020&386 iVuk] fnukad&21-12-2020 }kjk iznr
vf/kdkjksa ds rgr vkidks rRdky izHkko ls fdlh Hkh foHkkx }kjk fufonk esa Hkkxs
ysus ls oafpr (Debar) fd;k tkrk gSA
g0@&
dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark
yksd LokLF; izeaMy] csfr;kA
Kkikad --76--@ fnukad 18@01@2021
izfr0%& t; ckck HkksysukFk] xksikyiqj] [kksjhikdM+] fo"kquiqj] dy;ku] lkgscxat]
eqtQ~Qjiqj dks lwpukFkZ izsf'kr djrs gq, funs"k fn;k tkrk gS fd vfoyEc
;kstuk dk dk;Z iw.kZ djrs gq, tykiwfrZ izkjaHk djsaA
g0@&
dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark
yksd LokLF; izeaMy] csfr;kA
Kkikad --76--@ fnukad 18@01@2021
izfr0%& lgk;d vfHk;ark] yksd Lok0 voj izeaMy] jkeuxj dks lwpukFkZ
izsf'kr ,oa funs"k fn;k tkrk gS fd laosnd }kjk fd xbZZ izxfr ls voxr djk;saxs
Patna High Court CWJC No.8748 of 2025 dt.11-09-2025
,oa larks'kizn ugha gksus fd fLFkfr ij vkxs fd dk;Zokgh gsrq viuh vuqla"kk
HkstsaxsA
g0@&
dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark
yksd LokLF; izeaMy] csfr;kA
Kkikad --76--@ fnukad 18@01@2021
izfr0%& v/kh{k.k vfHk;ark] yksd Lok0 vfHk;a=.k vapy] eksfrgkjh@ eq[;
vfHk;ark] yksd LokLF; vfHk;a=.k eqtQ~Qjiqj] iz{ks= eqtQQjiqj dks lwpukFkZ
lefiZrA
g0@&
dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark
yksd LokLF; izeaMy] csfr;kA
Kkikad --76--@ fnukad 18@01@2021
izfr0%& vfHk;ark izeq[k&lg&fo"ks'k lfpo] yksd LokLF; vfHk;a=.k foHkkx] fcgkj
iVuk dks vko";d dkjZokbZ gsrq lwpukFkZ lefiZrA
g0@&
dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark
yksd LokLF; izeaMy] csfr;kA
3. Petitioner has been blacklisted for indefinite
period and that too without hearing him like issuance of Show-
Cause Notice and receipt of explanation/objection, if any. Time
and again Courts have held that, if any action of the official
Respondent has civil consequences, in that event, invariably
authorities have to comply the principle of natural justice. That
apart, in the present case, petitioner has been blacklisted for
indefinite period by which right of the petitioner has been
violated under Article 19(1)(g) read with Article 21 of the
Constitution and contrary to Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in
the case of Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Limited and Another
versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2020)
18 Supreme Court Cases 550.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8748 of 2025 dt.11-09-2025
4. On this count, petitioner has made out a case.
Hence, impugned Memo No. 31 dated 18.01.2021 (Annexure-
P8) stands set aside. Matter is remanded to the concerned
authority to decide matter afresh after due following procedure.
Petitioner shall co-operate in the matter. In this context, the
concerned authority is hereby directed to take note of principle
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ORYX
Fisheries Private Limited Versus Union of India and others,
reported in (2010) 13 Supreme Court Cases 427. In paragraph-
40 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has rendered number of points to
be considered by the quasi judicial authority. Paragraph-40 reads
as under:
"40. In Kranti Associates [(2010) 9 SCC 496 :
(2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 852] this Court after
considering various judgments formulated certain
principles in SCC para 47 of the judgment which
are set out below : (SCC pp. 510-12)
"(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to
record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if
such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons
in support of its conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to
serve the wider principle of justice that justice must
not only be done it must also appear to be done as
well.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8748 of 2025 dt.11-09-2025
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid
restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of
judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative
power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been
exercised by the decision-maker on relevant
grounds and by disregarding extraneous
considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable
a component of a decision-making process as
observing principles of natural justice by judicial,
quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review
by superior courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries
committed to rule of law and constitutional
governance is in favour of reasoned decisions
based on relevant facts. This is virtually the
lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the
principle that reason is the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these
days can be as different as the judges and
authorities who deliver them. All these decisions
serve one common purpose which is to
demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors
have been objectively considered. This is important
for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice
delivery system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both
judicial accountability and transparency.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8748 of 2025 dt.11-09-2025
(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not
candid enough about his/her decision-making
process then it is impossible to know whether the
person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of
precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent,
clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or
'rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a
valid decision-making process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the
sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial
powers. Transparency in decision-making not only
makes the judges and decision-makers less prone
to errors but also makes them subject to broader
scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial
Candor(1987) 100 Harv. L. Rev. 731-37.)
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons
emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in
decision-making, the said requirement is now
virtually a component of human rights and was
considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See
Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] , EHRR
at p. 562, para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford
[2001 EWCA Civ 405 : 2001 ICR 847 (CA)] ,
wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the
European Convention of Human Rights which
requires, 'adequate and intelligent reasons must be
given for judicial decisions'.
(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play
a vital role in setting up precedents for the future.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8748 of 2025 dt.11-09-2025
Therefore, for development of law, requirement of
giving reasons for the decision is of the essence
and is virtually a part of 'due process'."
5. The above exercise shall be completed within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
6. Accordingly, instant Writ petition stands
allowed. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.
(P. B. Bajanthri, ACJ)
( Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
manish/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE N.A
Uploading Date 15.09.2025
Transmission Date N.A
