Sindhuja Engineer and ContractorversusThe State of Bihar

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1926 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 Respondent/s : 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. 164 dated 29.12.2025, as contained in Memo

     No.3940, in connection with Agreement No. SBD-21/2018-19,

     whereby and whereunder the Executive Engineer, Public Health
Patna High Court CWJC No.1926 of 2026 dt.18-04-2026
                                           2/7




       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 tender was awarded to the petitioner,

       leading to execution of an Agreement bearing No. SBD-21/2018-
Patna High Court CWJC No.1926 of 2026 dt.18-04-2026
                                           3/7




       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:

               “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
Patna High Court CWJC No.1926 of 2026 dt.18-04-2026
                                            4/7




               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.1926 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, 24.11.2025, 01.12.2025 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, Government of Bihar, Patna, hence it is only the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1926 of 2026 dt.18-04-2026
                                           6/7




       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.1926 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