Sindhuja Engineer and ContractorversusThe State of Bihar

          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