Patna High Court
M/s Harshidhi Security ServicesversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The termination order is set aside as it violated the 30‑day notice requirement in Clause 11(1) of the Request for Proposal.
Summary
The petitioner, Harshidhi Security Services, was awarded a housekeeping contract by the Bihar Department of Education but had its agreement terminated by the District Education Officer on 4 November 2025. The petitioner challenged the termination, arguing that the show‑cause notice dated 21 October 2025 was not followed by the 30‑day notice period required under Clause 11(1) of the Request for Proposal (RFP). The respondents contended that the termination was justified due to alleged hygiene complaints affecting student health. The court examined the RFP clause and found that the authority had indeed terminated the contract within 14 days, breaching the contractual notice requirement. Consequently, the court set aside the termination order, directed the authority to issue a fresh notice with adequate time for hearing, and allowed the petitioner to continue work pending further proceedings. The writ petition was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- Did the Department of Education comply with the 30‑day notice requirement under Clause 11 of the RFP before terminating the contract?
- Can the termination order be set aside on the ground of procedural non‑compliance with the RFP?
- Is the petitioner entitled to continue providing services until a fresh notice and hearing are conducted?
Subjects
- contract termination
- notice period
- RFP compliance
- public procurement
- writ petition
- administrative law
- health and safety
- blacklisting
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20423 of 2025
======================================================
M/s Harshidhi Security Services through its partner Prakash Kumar Singh,
aged about 41 years, Gender Male, Son of Sri Ram Nath Singh, having its
office at Plot No.- R-2/49-50 Nawada, Housing Complex, Dwarka More, P.S.-
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi- 110059.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director (Administration) -Cum- Additional Secretary, Department of
Education, Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Devendra Kr. Sinha, Sr. Adv.
Mr.Alexander Ashok, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Standing Counsel (25)
Mr. Ramprvesh Nath Tiwari, AC to SC 25
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
3 20-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief(s):-
“……...for quashing and setting aside the order
contained in Memo No. 1960 dated 04.11.2025
cancelling the agreement between Department
of Education Government of Bihar and
petitioner firm by respondent no. 4 District
Education Officer Muzaffarpur.”
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that pursuant to the tender notice issued by
Patna High Court CWJC No.20423 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
2/5
the Department of Education, Government of Bihar for the
purpose of providing housekeeping services, the petitioner has
participated in the tender process and being the successful
bidder was awarded the contract. Learned counsel submits that
the petitioner has been providing the housekeeping services
since 2023 without any complaint from any of the schools
where the services are being extended. Thereafter, the authority
has issued a show cause notice dated 21.10.2025 (Annexure P/4)
alleging that several complaints have been received against the
petitioner and the impugned order of termination dated
04.11.2025 has being passed (Annexure P/7). Learned counsel
submits that the alleged complaints made against the petitioner
are all cooked up and concocted, which been sought from the
Principals of the respective schools. A perusal of the complaints
alleged to have being made by the Principals of the schools
reveals that all of them were communicated just one week prior
to the issuance of the show-cause notice. Further, learned
counsel submits that the termination order dated 04.11.2025
(Annexure P/7) is contrary to the terms and conditions of the
Request For Proposal (RFP), more specifically, Clause 11.
Counsel submits that as per the terms and conditions of the
Request For Proposal (RFP), the official respondents are
Patna High Court CWJC No.20423 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
3/5
obligated to give a mandatory 30 days notice to the petitioner
before taking any action. However, the authority in this
particular case has issued show cause notice on 21.10.2025 and
passed the impugned order of termination on 04.11.2025, i.e.,
within a period of 30 days, contrary to the provisions of Clause
11 of the Request For Proposal (RFP). Further it is stated that
though the petitioner has submitted his explanation along with
letters of the respective Principals of the schools denying that
they have made any complaints against the petitioner, the same
was not taken into consideration by the authority while passing
the impugned order dated 04.11.2025 (Annexure P/7). That the
impugned order of termination is liable to be set aside as being
violated of Clause 11 of the R.F.P. Learned counsel has therefore
prayed this Hon’ble court to set aside the impugned order.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondents has vehemently opposed the very
maintainability of the writ petition. Learned counsel has stated
that the present writ petition is not maintainable, as the
authorities have received several complaints against the
petitioner. That all the school Principals have alleged that the
petitioner is maintaining poor hygiene and inadequate cleaning
is being carried out in all the schools. That the authority was
Patna High Court CWJC No.20423 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
4/5
compelled to terminate the contract as it was effecting the health
of he students. Counsel submits that the impugned order dated
04.11.2025 passed by the authority is in the larger interest of the
school children. in view of the non-performance of the
petitioner. That there is every likelihood of the children falling
sick at the school, which could adversely affect their health.
Learned counsel has therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court
dismiss the present writ petition.
5. Admittedly in the present case, the show cause
notice was issued to the petitioner on 21.10.2025 and impugned
order of termination was passed on 04.11.2025. The terms and
conditions of Request For Proposal (RFP) (Annexure P/1), more
specifically, Clause 11(1), which reads as under:-
11. Termination & Blacklisting:
1. The Department may terminate this Agreement
and Blacklist/Debar the vendor, in case of
occurrence of any of the events specified below. In
the event of such an occurrence, the First Party
may give not less than 30 days written notice of
termination to Second Party.”
A reading of the above clause 11(1) makes it
abundantly clear that the authority is required to issue a show
cause notice granting a minimum period of 30 days before
terminating the contract. Admittedly, in the present case, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20423 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
5/5
impugned order was passed within a period of 14 days from the
date of issuance of the show cause notice which is contrary to
Clause 11(1) of the Request For Proposal (RFP) (Annexure P/1).
6. Having regard to the same, the impugned order
dated 04.11.2025 (Annexure P/7) is set aside. In case the
authority wants to take any action, they shall issue a fresh show
cause notice containing all the allegations to the petitioner and
grant him sufficient time to file his explanation. Thereafter the
authority is free to pass a reasoned order in terms of Clause
11(1) of the Request For Proposal (RFP). The authority before
passing any order shall duly take into consideration the
explanation submitted by the petitioner and grant him an
opportunity for hearing. Any order passed shall be
communicated to the parties.
7. Till such time the final orders are passed, the
petitioner shall be allowed to continue the work.
8. With the above directions, the present writ petition
stands disposed of.
(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)
Bhardwaj/-
U
Checking your session…