Patna High Court
M/S R. K. Tech vs The State Of Bihar on 15 September, 2025
Author: Alok Kumar Sinha
Bench: Alok Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9770 of 2025
======================================================
M/S R K Tech a proprietorship firm, having its registered office at NH-28 A,
Bankat Bairiya, P.S.- Muffasil, P.O- Motihari, District-East Champaran-
845401 through its proprietor Mr. Raj Kumar Tripathi (male), aged about 45
years, Son of Ram Babu Tripathi, resident of Rajpur, Rajpur, P.O- Rajpur,
P.S.- Kesaria, District- East Champaran, Bihar- 845432.
... ... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Election Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Election Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Special Secretary-cum-Additional Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar, Patna.
5. The District Election Officer-cum-District Magistrate, Samastipur, Bihar.
6. The Deputy Election Officer, Samastipur, Bihar.
7. The Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Electoral Registration Officer of 131
Kalyanpur, Samastipur, Bihar.
8. The District Purchase Committee in relation to P.R. No.019820 (Election)
2023-24, through its Chairman District Election Officer-cum-District
Magistrate, Samastipur, Bihar.
9. The District Information Officer, Samastipur, Bihar.
10. Sri Roshan Kushwaha, Official address- Office of District Collector- Cum-
District Magistrate, First Floor, Collectorate, Samastipur, Bihar.
11. M/s Maa Durga Printers, Aurangabad, a partnership firm through its
authorized partner namely not known to the petitioner, having its registered
office at Brahmarshi Chowk, Club Road, Shri Krishna Nagar Road,
Aurangabad, Bihar- 824101.
... ... Respondents.
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. P.N. Shahi, Senior Advocate.
Ms. Riya Giri, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General.
Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate.
For ECI : Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Advocate.
For Respondent No.11 : Mr. Dinu Kumar, Advocate.
Mr. Vardaan Mangalam, Advocate.
Ms. Himja G. Singh, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 15-09-2025
In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed
Patna High Court CWJC No.9770 of 2025 dt.15-09-2025
2/9
for the following relief(s):
" i) To issue a writ/order/ direction in the
nature of certiorari to set aside order contained
in Memo No. 674 dated 21.05.2025 issued
under the signature of Deputy Election Officer,
Samastipur by which the agreement dated
06.04.2024
of the petitioner has been
terminated.
ii) To produce and set aside order dt.
20.05.2025 file no. V-5/2023-25 of District
Election Officer-cum-District Magistrate,
Samastipur by which approval for termination
of agreement of the petitioner dated 06.04.2024
has been given.
iii) To issue a writ/order/ direction in the
nature of certiorari to set aside order contained
in Memo no. 693 dated 22.05.2025 issued under
the signature of the District Election Officer-
cum-District Magistrate, Samastipur, by which
the petitioner has been debarred/ restrained
from work of voter list in Samstipur District for
one year from the date of issuance of order.
iv) To hold and declare that the order of
termination of agreement contained in Memo
No. 674 dated 21.05.2025 is wholly without
jurisdiction as none of the terms of the
agreement has been violated empowering the
respondent authorities to take such punitive
action against the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9770 of 2025 dt.15-09-2025
v) To pass interim / ex-parte interim
order staying the operation of order contained in
Memo No. 674 dated 21.05.2025 issued under
the signature of Deputy Election Officer,
Samastipur on behalf of District Election
Officer-cum-District Magistrate, Samastipur by
which the agreement dated 06.04.2024 has been
terminated and staying operation of order
contained in Memo no. 693 dated 22.05.2025
issued under the signature of the District
Election Officer-cum-District Magistrate,
Samastipur, by which the petitioner has been
debarred/ restrained from work of voter list in
Samstipur District for one year from the date of
issuance of order contained in Memo no. 674
dated 21.05.2025 and/or no re-tender be issued
for the work of agreement dated 06.04.2024,
during the pendency of writ application.
vi) To any other relief or reliefs for
which the petitioner is found to be entitled in
the facts and circumstances of the case.
1(vii) To pass appropriate writ order
direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing
of the Short Term Tender Notice dated
04.06.2025 issued under the signature of
District Election Officer-cum- District
Magistarte, Samastipur, Bihar, any consequent
action thereto.
1(viii) To produce and set aside the work
order and agreement in relation to Short Term
Patna High Court CWJC No.9770 of 2025 dt.15-09-2025
Tender Notice dated 04.06.2025 issued under
the signature of District Election Officer-cum-
District Magistarte, Samastipur, Bihar."
2. The petitioner failed to complete the work which
was allotted read with the agreement entered among the
respective parties. In this regard, show cause notice was issued
on 05.05.2025 for which the petitioner had submitted reply on
10.05.2025. Thereafter, final order was passed on 21.05.2025
vide Annexure-P24 to the writ petition by which petitioner's
contract was terminated followed by debarment for a period of
one year vide Annexure-P26 dated 22.05.2025 to the writ
petition.
3. Perusal of the show cause notice read with the
petitioner's reply and consequential action of terminating the
contract read with the debarment, it is crystal clear that the
concerned authority/author of the Annexures-P24 and P26 have
not appreciated the gist of the show cause notice read with the
petitioner's reply to the show cause notice and there is a total
non-consideration of the petitioner's grievance. In fact, there is
no show cause notice for certain action to be taken. In other
words, without providing show cause notice, impugned actions
have been taken on certain issue. The author of Annexures-P24
Patna High Court CWJC No.9770 of 2025 dt.15-09-2025
and P26 is exercising quasi judicial function and his actions
have civil consequences on the petitioner. In such an event,
time and again Courts have held that minimum requirement of
hearing the concerned person. In this regard, a detailed
Judgment has been rendered 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. Paragraph-40 of the same 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.
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid
restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of
judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative
Patna High Court CWJC No.9770 of 2025 dt.15-09-2025
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.9770 of 2025 dt.15-09-2025
judicial accountability and transparency.
(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
Patna High Court CWJC No.9770 of 2025 dt.15-09-2025
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.
Therefore, for development of law, requirement of
giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and
is virtually a part of 'due process'."
Taking note of the principles laid down in the
aforementioned decision, the petitioner has made out a case so
as to interfere with Annexures-P24 and P26 dated 21.05.2025
and 22.05.2025 respectively and they are set aside.
4. The matter is remanded to the concerned authority
to proceed afresh by issuing a fresh detailed show cause notice
and seeking petitioner's explanation and thereafter proceed to
pass detailed and speaking order. The above exercise shall be
completed within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of this order.
5. At this stage, the learned Advocate General,
appearing for the State, on instructions submitted that after
termination of contract of the petitioner, third party right has
created and the remaining work has been allotted and it was
executed. Therefore, the third party right has already accrued.
Be that as it may, the same shall be taken note of by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9770 of 2025 dt.15-09-2025
concerned authority.
6. Accordingly, instant writ petition stands disposed
of.
(P. B. Bajanthri, ACJ)
( Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
P.S./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 17.09.2025.
Transmission Date NA
