Patna High Court
Ramadhar SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The writ petition was not entertained because an alternative statutory remedy under Rule 11(e) of the Bihar Registration of Contractors Rules, 2007 is available.
Summary
The petitioner, Ramadhar Sah, a contractor, was debarred from participating in future tenders and warned of blacklisting by the Public Health Engineering Department of Bihar for allegedly failing to pay electricity bills under agreement SBD‑07/2016‑17. He contended that the Department had not made any payments for his maintenance work (2018‑2023), rendering him unable to settle the electricity charges, and sought a writ of certiorari to quash the debarment order and a mandamus to allow him to continue work and bid in tenders. The State argued that the petitioner could challenge the debarment through the statutory appeal provided under Rule 11(e) of the Bihar Registration of Contractors Rules, 2007. The Court held that because an efficacious alternative remedy exists, the writ jurisdiction is not appropriate at this stage. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to prefer an appeal within thirty days and disposed of the writ application.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition challenging the debarment order when a specific statutory appeal under the Bihar Registration of Contractors Rules, 2007 is available.
- Whether the debarment and threatened blacklisting are arbitrary or violative of natural justice warranting quashing.
Subjects
- writ of certiorari
- mandamus
- debarment
- blacklisting
- public procurement
- alternative remedy
- administrative law
- Bihar Registration of Contractors Rules
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.227 of 2026
======================================================
Ramadhar Sah S/o Ram Sundar Sah, R/o Village-Mohari, P.O.-Kamrauli, P.S.
and District-Sheohar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Public Health
Engineering Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Engineer-in-Chief-Cum-Special Secretary, Public Health Engineering
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
5. The Zonal Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Zone, Muzaffarpur.
6. The Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circle, Motihari,
East Champaran.
7. The Executive Engineer, Public Health, Division Bettiah, West Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Siyaram Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG-3
Mr. Saroj Kr. Sharma, AC to AAG-3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
5 09-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Following is the relief sought for in the present writ
application:-
“I. Writ of Certiorari for quashing/setting aside the
office order no.451 dated-18.11.2025 as contained
in memo no.3716 dated-18.11.2025 issued by the
office of the Executive Engineer, Public Health
Division, Bettiah by which the petitioner is debarred
from taking part in any next tender offered by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.227 of 2026(5) dt.09-04-2026
2/3
respondents and be pleased to quash letter no. 3913
dated-02.12.2025 as contained in memo no.3913
dated-02.12.2025 issued by the office of the
Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Bettiah
by which the petitioner is warned to be
recommended for blacklisted by repudiating the
agreement no. SBD-07/2016-17 for not making
payment of electricity bill which is due till date in a
wrong, arbitrary and whimsical manner as the
authority has to make payment of the electric bill
because there is no such provision in the agreement
itself that the petitioner would make payment of
electricity bill.
II. And/or be pleased to issue of a writ in the nature
of writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ/writs,
order/orders direction/directions commanding or the
respondents not to disturb the petitioner and allow
him to continue his work allotted in an agreement
no. SBD-07/2016-17 and allow him to take part in
any open tender without any hindrance,
III. And/or be pleased to pass such other
order/orders which may be deemed fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was entrusted with maintenance work for the period
2018 to 2023. It is further submitted that no payments were
made by the Department towards the said work and, on account
thereof, the petitioner could not deposit the electricity bills.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that an
alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available under Rule-
Patna High Court CWJC No.227 of 2026(5) dt.09-04-2026
3/3
11(e) of the Bihar Registration of Contractors Rules, 2007
before the Respondent No. 1.
5. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the
parties, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ
application at this stage in view of the availability of an
efficacious alternative remedy.
6. The petitioner is directed liberty to prefer an appeal
within a period of 30 days from today.
7. In the event, such an appeal is preferred, the
authority concerned shall consider the same and pass an
appropriate order in accordance with law, after affording due
opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders and taking into
account the aforesaid submission advanced by the petitioner.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the
present writ application stands disposed of.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J.)
(Shailendra Singh, J.)
Sachin/-
U
Checking your session…