Patna High Court
M/S R. P. Construction vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 12 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17327 of 2018
======================================================
M/s R. P. Construction through its Partner Upendra Kumar Singh, son of Late
R.P. Singh, resident of Dak Bunglow Road, P.S. Kahalgaon, District
Bhagalpur, Bihar, Permanent Resident of Village- Nandlalpur, P.O.
Nandlalpur, P.S. Kahalgaon, District Bhagalpur, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Works
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The Deputy Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer- 2, Rural Works Department, Patna, Bihar.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division,
Bhagalpur.
5. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Division,
Kahalgaon, District Bhagalpur, Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocae
For the Respondent/s : M/s K.P.Gupta, GP 10
Anwar Karim, AC to GP 10
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 12-09-2025
1 The petitioner has filed the instant
application for the following reliefs:
"(i) Quashing of the exparte
Enquiry Report dated 09.01.2014 as
furnished by the Superintending
Engineer, Technical Vigilance Cell,
whereby on the basis of an exparte
Enquiry and Inspection, certain defects
Patna High Court CWJC No.17327 of 2018 dt.12-09-2025
2/10
have been reported and action against
the petitioner has been recommended;
(ii) Quashing of the Letter
No. 1186 dated 23.10.2015 (Annexure
7) issued by the Deputy Secretary,
Respondent No. 2 directing the
petitioner to furnish the explanation
against contemplated adverse actions
on the basis of an exparte Flying Squad
Enquiry; and
(iii) Direction upon the
respondent to release the Security
deposit and other deductions which
have been deducted from the Running
Account Bills of the petitioner and
becomes liable to be refunded after the
lapse of the defect liability period."
2. The brief facts culled out of the writ
petition is that the petitioner firm is a registered
Class-I contractor with the Rural Works
Department, Government of Bihar. The dispute is
Patna High Court CWJC No.17327 of 2018 dt.12-09-2025
3/10
related to an ex parte enquiry and a report
submitted thereafter concerning the Special Repair
Work of Kharhara Santhal Pargana Road, Block
Sanahula, District Bhagalpur. It is submitted that
administrative approval amounting to Rs.
2,09,60,000/- was granted on 28.07.2012 by the
Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department,
Works Division, Bhagalpur and the work was
allotted to the petitioner, by the Chief Engineer 2,
Rural Works Department, Patna, vide Letter No.
2589 dated 10.10.2012, at 2.99% below the
estimated cost. The jurisdictional Executive
Engineer issued the work order, vide Letter No. 271
dated 19.10.2012, specifying the commencement
date as 18.10.2012 and the contemplated
completion date as on 28.02.2013. Thereafter, the
work was carried out and the work was completed
as per prescribed quality and specifications without
any adverse report or notification of any defects
from jurisdictional officers and payments were
made after quality test reports.
3. It is submitted that at the instance of
Patna High Court CWJC No.17327 of 2018 dt.12-09-2025
4/10
a local MLA some complaints were made. THe
departmental ministers reported certain defects
vide Letter No. 1689 dated 13.02.2013, requesting
for rectification of the pointed defects.
Subsequently, the same public representative
issued Letter No. 1981 dated 23.07.2013,
certifying that all defects were rectified and no
further action was necessary. Notwithstanding the
above, the Additional Secretary, Department of
Vigilance, vide Letter No. 4179 dated 08.08.2013,
requested an enquiry despite the lapse of the
defect liability period. It is further submitted that
on the basis of this request, the Technical Vigilance
Cell conducted an enquiry and submitted a report
dated 09.01.2014.
4. It is contended that the report was
reviewed at departmental level, and vide Letter
No. 1941 dated 04.06.2015, the Joint Secretary,
Rural Works Department, directed the Engineer-in-
Chief to take appropriate action against the
petitioner. On 13.10.2015, the petitioner was
served Letter No. 1186, directing him to furnish
Patna High Court CWJC No.17327 of 2018 dt.12-09-2025
5/10
explanation within a specified time, failing which
appropriate ex parte action would be taken.
Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a detailed
reply on 03.12.2015 denying the allegations and
requested the department to release the earnest
money and security deposit upon completion and
lapse of defect liability period. Despite lapse of
over three years, no communication was received
regarding acceptance of the reply or release of the
security deposit.
5. The Learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the enquiry report dated
09.01.2014and subsequent Letter No. 1186 dated 23.10.2015 were based on an ex parte enquiry, conducted without following the due procedures and Principles Of Natural Justice. It is further submitted that the petitioner was never given prior notice of the enquiry or site inspection, as required under the Standard Bidding Document.
6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that there was no direction or entry in the site order book authorizing such an enquiry, Patna High Court CWJC No.17327 of 2018 dt.12-09-2025 6/10 which is essentially required. Further, the enquiry report was signed by only one Superintending Engineer, whereas the presence and signature of at least two Engineers is mandatory for quorum, thus invalidating the report.
7. Further, the samples were collected in the absence of the petitioner or any of his representative, without proper documentation regarding the source, method of collection, sealing, or certification. The enquiry was conducted after the lapse of the six-month defect liability period, beyond which the contractor cannot be held liable for defects. It is submitted that the enquiry report is vague and does not provide any concrete findings regarding guilt or substandard work.
8. The Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the work was completed on 28.02.2013, but the inspection was conducted on 09.01.2014, after the road was submerged in the flood water for one season besides and heavy traffic, which could have caused damages unrelated to the petitioner's workmanship. Patna High Court CWJC No.17327 of 2018 dt.12-09-2025 7/10
9. It is argued that the enquiry and show cause notice have adversely affected the petitioner's ability to participate in tenders, as the pending enquiry must be disclosed, leading to adverse consequences. Security deposits and bank guarantees have been wrongfully withheld for over five years, causing serious financial losses.
10. It is submitted that the Technical Vigilance Cell is only mandated to submit reports to the department, and further action lies with the concerned department, which explains why the Vigilance Cell was not impleaded as a respondent.
11. Though the respondents were directed to file a counter affidavit vide order dated 24.09.2018, no such affidavit has been filed till date.
12. However, the Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the enquiry and subsequent actions were initiated based on complaints and administrative instructions as itself stated in the Writ petition.
13. It is further submitted that the Patna High Court CWJC No.17327 of 2018 dt.12-09-2025 8/10 enquiry was conducted following departmental procedures to address the alleged defects.
14. Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents.
15. Upon perusal of records and pleadings, it is apparent that the enquiry dated 09.01.2014 and the Show Cause Letter No. 1186 dated 23.10.2015 were conducted and an ex parte order was issued, violating the principles of natural justice. From perusal of the records, it appears that the petitioner was never given prior notice under the Standard Bidding Document before conducting the enquiry or of site inspection. No entry or direction in the site order book authorized the enquiry, which is mandatory under the procedural rules. The inspection report was signed by only one Superintending Engineer; however, the presence and signature of at least two Engineers are necessary for quorum, which renders the enquiry report invalid. It further appears that sample collection took place in the absence of the petitioner or his representatives, without proper Patna High Court CWJC No.17327 of 2018 dt.12-09-2025 9/10 documentation of the sampling process, sealing, and certification, thereby undermining the validity of the report. The record further reveals that the enquiry was conducted after the expiry of defect liability period of six months, which legally absolves the contractor from liability for defects. This Court opines that the withholding of the security deposit and bank guarantees despite completion of work and lapse of defect liability period is unjust, causing financial hardship to the petitioner. The failure of respondents to file a counter affidavit despite repeated directions also weighs against them.
16. Accordingly, the impugned ex parte enquiry report dated 09.01.2014 and Show Cause Letter No. 1186 dated 23.10.2015 are hereby quashed and set aside.
17. The matter is remitted to the respondent authorities for a fresh enquiry in accordance with law, if it is permitted and the said enquiry shall be concluded within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is Patna High Court CWJC No.17327 of 2018 dt.12-09-2025 10/10 needless to say that reasonable opportunity shall be given to all concerned parties.
18. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed.
19. Interlocutory Application, if any, shall stands disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J) Spd/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 24.09.2025 Transmission Date