Patna High Court
Anand Consultants A Proprietor Firm ... vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 14 March, 2018
Author: Vikash Jain
Bench: Vikash Jain
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13601 of 2017
===========================================================
Anand Consultants, a Proprietory Firm through Rupesh Kumar Srivastava son
of Late Anand Bihari Srivastava resident of 157-C, Patliputra Colony, Near
Tennis Court, Patna - 800013.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Dept. of Industries, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
2. Infrastructure Development Authority (A Government of Bihar Undertaking)
1st Floor, Udyog Bhawan, East of Gandhi Maidan, Patna - 800004.
3. The Managing Director, Infrastructure Development Authority, 1st Floor,
Udyog Bhawan, East of Gandhi Maidan, Patna - 800004.
4. Director (Project & Implementation), Infrastructure Development Authority,
1st Floor, Udyog Bhawan, East of Gandhi Maidan, Patna - 800004.
5. Executive Engineer, Infrastructure Development Authority, 1st Floor, Udyog
Bhawan, East of Gandhi Maidan, Patna - 800004.
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P.K.Shahi, Sr. Adv
Mrs. Poonam Singh, Adv
Mr. Abhimanyu Vatsa, Adv
Mr. Rajni Kant Singh, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Abbas Haider-SC6
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 14-03-2018
The present writ petition has been filed for the following
reliefs:-
(i) To quash and cancel the show cause notice as
contained in letter no. 1391 dated 26.07.2017
as also to quash and cancel the decision/order
of the Director (Project and
Implementation)/Director (P&I) (Respondent
No. 4) as contained in office order no.
1608/Tech dated 04.09.2017 by which the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13601 of 2017 dt.14-03-2018 2
agreement no. 103/SBD/2015-16 executed in
favour of the petitioner has been terminated
and in accordance with the Bihar Contractors
Registration Rules, 2007, Clause 11(ka)(ii) the
petitioner firm has been blacklisted for all time
to come and the Earnest Money Deposit has
also been forfeited.
(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus restraining the
respondents from giving effect to the
order/direction as contained in office order no.
20 dated 04.09.2017.
(iii) To issue any other appropriate writ/writs,
direction/directions as the Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
2. Mr.P.K. Shahi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 04.09.2017
(Annexure-12) is wholly arbitrary and illegal. Pursuant to show
cause notice dated 26.07.2017 (Annexure-11), the petitioner
submitted its detailed reply dated 04.08.2017 and 30.08.2017
against the proposed action of cancellation of the agreement,
blacklisting, institution of the FIR etc. The impugned order, however,
has been passed without due application of mind and without
assigning any reason for not accepting the show cause reply of the
petitioner. However, the petitioner has been blacklisted for
indefinite period, contrary to the settled principles of law. He relies
on the decision of the Apex Court in Kulja Industries Limited vs. Chief
Patna High Court CWJC No.13601 of 2017 dt.14-03-2018 3
General Manager, Western Telecom Project, Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited and others, (2014) 14 SCC 731.
3. Having heard the parties and on consideration of the
materials on record, this Court finds merit in the submissions of the
petitioner. In Kulja Industries (supra) it was observed as follows :-
"25. Suffice it to say that "debarment" is recognised and
often used as an effective method for disciplining deviant
suppliers/contractors who may have committed acts of
omission and commission or frauds including
misrepresentations, falsification of records and other
breaches of the regulations under which such contracts
were allotted. What is notable is that the "debarment" is
never permanent and the period of debarment would
invariably depend upon the nature of the offence
committed by the erring contractor."
4. It would appear that the principles in regard to -*
"debarment" and "blacklisting" would be the same in view of para
21 of the said judgment, wherein it has been observed as follows -
"21. The legal position governing blacklisting of
supplies in U.S.A. and U.K. is no different. In U.S.A.
instead of using the expression "blacklisting" the
term "debarring" is used by the statutes and the
Courts."
5. In the above view of the matter, the impugned order dated
04.09.2017(Annexure-12) is hereby quashed and the matter remanded to the Director (Project & Implementation), Infrastructure Development Authority, Ist Floor, Udyog Bhawan, East of Gandhi Patna High Court CWJC No.13601 of 2017 dt.14-03-2018 4 Maidan, Patna - 800 004 (Respondent No. 4) to pass orders afresh after considering the aforesaid replies of the petitioner, pursuant to the show cause notice, before passing fresh orders in accordance with law.
6. The writ petition stands disposed of.
(Vikash Jain, J)
Chandran/BT
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading 20.03.2018
Date
Transmission NA
Date