Patna High Court
Sindhuja Engineer and ContractorversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
The debarment order dated 29‑12‑2025 is invalid and is quashed, with the matter remanded to the registering authority to issue a fresh show‑cause notice and pass a lawful order.
Summary
The petitioner, Sindhuja Engineer and Contractor, a Class I contractor registered under the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007, was awarded a contract for a fluoride removal project in Banka district and completed the work. The Executive Engineer (respondent No.4) later issued show‑cause notices for unpaid electricity bills and, on 29‑12‑2025, debarred the petitioner indefinitely via Office Order No. 174. The petitioner challenged the debarment, arguing that the Executive Engineer lacked authority under Rule 11(d) of the Rules, that the debarment was indefinite and thus violative of natural justice and the principle that debarment cannot be permanent as held in Khulja Industries Ltd. v. BSNL (2014). The Court held that only the registering authority, the Chief Engineer (Urban) (respondent No.3), could issue a show‑cause notice and order debarment, and that an indefinite debarment is unsustainable. Consequently, the Court quashed the Office Order and remanded the matter to respondent No.3 to issue a fresh, lawful show‑cause notice and pass a reasoned order.
Issues considered
- Whether the Executive Engineer (respondent No.4) had jurisdiction to issue show‑cause notices and order debarment of the contractor under the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007.
- Whether an indefinite debarment order violates principles of natural justice, proportionality, and the Supreme Court’s ruling that debarment cannot be permanent.
- Whether the procedural requirements of natural justice were complied with before the debarment order was passed.
Subjects
- debarment
- blacklisting
- contractor registration
- natural justice
- indefinite ban
- public health engineering
- show cause notice
- proportionality
- fundamental right to trade
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1721 of 2026
======================================================
Sindhuja Engineer and Contractor having its Principal Place of Business at
Village Mow, P.S. Tekari, District Gaya, Bihar through its Authorized
Signatory, Sushil Kumar, aged about 53 years, Male, Son of jitendra Sharma,
Resident of Flat No. 201, 2nd Floor, Yamuna Block- 6 Sector D6- Vasant
Kunj, P.S. Vasant Kunj, District South West Delhi, Delhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Public Health and
Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Engineer in Chief, Public Health and Engineering Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer (Urban) cum Registering Authority, Public Health and
Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Banka, District Banka,
Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Shubham Prakash, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Yogendra Pd. Sinha, AAG 7
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
Date : 18-04-2026
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of
the Office Order No. 174 dated 29.12.2025, as contained in
Memo No.3952, in connection with Agreement No. SBD-
22/2018-19, whereby and whereunder the Executive Engineer,
Patna High Court CWJC No.1721 of 2026 dt.18-04-2026
2/7
Public Health Division, Banka, i.e. the respondent No.4 has
debarred the petitioner firm. The petitioner has also prayed for
quashing of the letter dated 14.01.2026, issued by the
respondent No.4 whereby the petitioner has been directed to
make payment of the electricity bills within 24 hours, failing
which process shall be initiated for debarment/rescindment of
the contract.
2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner are that
the petitioner is a registered Class I contractor under the
provisions of the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules, 2007’). The petitioner was
granted certificate of registration dated 26.08.2020, as a
Contractor of Public Health Engineering Department by the
Chief Engineer (Urban), Public Health Engineering Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna, i.e. the respondent No.3 for a
period of five years. The petitioner is stated to have participated
in a tender process relating to Mukhya Mantri Peyjal Nischay
Yojana for the District of Banka relating to the work of
management of safe and pure drinking water for the areas which
were affected by High Floride content in the water by
establishing / construction of Floride Removal / Treatment Unit
along with five years operation and maintenance. The said
Patna High Court CWJC No.1721 of 2026 dt.18-04-2026
3/7
tender was awarded to the petitioner, leading to execution of an
Agreement bearing No. SBD-22/2018-19 in between the
petitioner and the respondent No.4 as also issuance of work
order on 08.03.2019. The petitioner is stated to have completed
the work.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that subsequently the
respondent No.4, vide Office Order dated 17.12.2025 had
directed the petitioner to pay the up to date electricity bills by
means of receipt failing which it was contemplated that the bills
would be paid from the amount payable to the petitioner from
the concerned work division and further action for
debarment/blacklisting/ rescindment of agreement etc. shall be
taken in terms of the agreement and in accordance with law.
Thereafter, the respondent No.4 has issued the impugned Office
Order dated 29.12.2025, debarring the petitioner indefinitely
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
debarment cannot be for an indefinite period in view of the law
laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Khulja
Industries Limited vs. Chief General Manager, Western
Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others,
reported in (2014) 14 SCC 731, paragraph No.25 whereof is
reproduced in herein below:
Patna High Court CWJC No.1721 of 2026 dt.18-04-2026
4/7
“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.”
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that
the impugned order dated 29.12.2025 has been issued by an
incompetent authority inasmuch as the respondent No.4 is not
the authority who had registered the firm of the petitioner. It is
thus submitted that only the respondent No.3 could have either
issued the show cause notice to the petitioner or the order of
debarment/ blacklisting qua the petitioner. In this regard,
reference has been made to Rule 11 (d) of the Rules, 2007,
which is reproduced herein below:-
“(d) The order of blacklisting/suspension shall be passed by the
officer who is competent to register the contractor or by the
officer under whom the registering officer works.”
Thus, it is submitted that since the respondent No.3 i.e.
the Chief Engineer (Urban)-cum-Registering Authority, Public
Health and Engineering Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna is the registering authority of the firm of the petitioner, he
was only authorized to either issue show cause notice to the
petitioner or pass any order of debarment/blacklisting.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1721 of 2026 dt.18-04-2026
5/7
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-State has
submitted that the respondent No.4 had issued show cause
notices dated 16.09.2025, 19.11.2025 and 17.12.2025, apart
from other notices before passing the impugned order dated
29.12.2025, hence the principles of natural justice have been
complied with before passing of the impugned order dated
29.12.2025. Nonetheless, the learned counsel for the
respondent-State has not been able to show from the records or
from the Rules, 2007 that the respondent No.4 is the competent
authority to either issue show cause notice to the petitioner,
prior to passing of the order for debarment/ blacklisting or pass
an order of debarment/ blacklisting itself.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the materials on record. We find from the records that
the show cause notices as also the order of debarment of the
petitioner firm have been issued by the respondent No.4, who is
not the registering authority in the present case inasmuch as a
bare perusal of the certificate of registration, annexed as
Annexure P/1 to the present writ petition would show that the
registering authority is the respondent No.3, i.e. the Chief
Engineer (Urban)-cum-Registering Authority, Public Health and
Engineering Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, hence it is only
Patna High Court CWJC No.1721 of 2026 dt.18-04-2026
6/7
the respondent No.3 who is/was authorized to issue show cause
notice for debarment/ blacklisting as also pass an order of
debarment/ blacklisting. Thus, a debarment or blacklisting order
passed without a valid show cause notice is not only invalid but
also violates the principles of natural justice, hence is liable to
be quashed on this ground alone.
8. We further find that it is a well settled law that an order of
debarment/blacklisting passed for an indefinite period is legally
unsustainable, as it violates the principles of natural justice, the
doctrine of proportionality, and the fundamental right to carry
on trade. In the present case, by the impugned order dated
29.12.2025, the petitioner firm has been debarred for an
indefinite period. The law in this regard is no longer res integra
inasmuch as the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Khulja
Industries Limited (supra) has held that debarment can never be
permanent. Thus, on this score as well the impugned order dated
29.12.2025 is unsustainable in the eyes of law.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
for the foregoing reasons, we deem it fit and proper to quash the
impugned Office Order dated 29.12.2025 and remand the matter
back to the respondent No.3 who shall issue fresh show cause
notice to the petitioner and after inviting his objections shall
Patna High Court CWJC No.1721 of 2026 dt.18-04-2026
7/7
pass a reasoned and a speaking order, in accordance with law
and the agreement entered into between the parties.
10. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
( Arun Kumar Jha, J)
GAURAV S./-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 25.04.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…