Patna High Court
Randhir KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The writ petition was dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, a contractor, challenged a departmental order that blacklisted him for two years and the subsequent rejection of his appeal, alleging the orders were illegal, arbitrary, and violated the Bihar Contractor Registration Rules, 2007 and principles of natural justice. He sought certiorari to quash the orders and mandamus to restore his registration and allow participation in future tenders. After hearing, the petitioner withdrew the writ petition, indicating a preference for any alternative legal remedy. The court, noting the withdrawal, dismissed the writ petition without further adjudication on the merits. Consequently, no relief was granted and the blacklisting order remained in effect pending any other remedy the petitioner might pursue.
Issues considered
- Whether the departmental blacklisting order and the rejection of the appeal were within the jurisdiction and complied with the Bihar Contractor Registration Rules, 2007 and principles of natural justice
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of certiorari to quash the blacklisting order
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to direct the respondents to revoke the blacklisting and restore the contractor's registration
Legislation cited
Subjects
- blacklisting
- contractor registration
- writ petition
- certiorari
- mandamus
- natural justice
- Bihar Contractor Registration Rules
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3328 of 2026
======================================================
Randhir Kumar Son of Jagdish Ray, Resident of Village and Post- Belahi,
P.S.- Meenapur, District Muzaffarpur, through its proprietor Randhir Kumar
having its registered office at Belahi Lachhi, Muzzaffarpur, Bihar, Pincode-
843128.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Chief Engineer, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Division,
Muzaffarpur East- 02.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Pragati Patra,Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Advocate (5)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
3 29-06-2026 The present writ petition has been filed seeking the
following reliefs:-
“I. That the present writ application is being filed for
issuance of an appropriate writ, order and/or direction in the
nature of Certiorari, for quashing and setting aside the
Departmental Order No. 11409 dated 11.11.2025
(ANNEXURE-P/9), whereby the petitioner has been
blacklisted for a period of two years, and further the Appeal
preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the Respondent
authorities vide Order dated 05.12.2025 (ANNEXURE-P/12),
as the same is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, mala-
fide, disproportionate, and passed in gross violation of the
Bihar Contractor Registration Rules, 2007 and principles of
natural justice;
Patna High Court CWJC No.3328 of 2026(3) dt.29-06-2026
2/2
II. That the present writ application is being filed for
issuance of an appropriate writ, order and/or direction in the
nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to revoke
and withdraw the blacklisting order dated 11.11.2025 and
05.12.2025 respectively and restore the contractor
registration of the petitioner;
III. That the present writ application is being filed for
issuance of an appropriate writ, order and/or direction in the
nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the
petitioner to participate in all future and ongoing tenders
issued by the Rural Works Department during the period of
pendency of the present writ petition.”
2. After some arguments, the learned counsel for the
petitioner seeks not to press the present writ petition, however
submits that if there is any alternative remedy available to the
petitioner under the law, the petitioner shall try his luck.
3. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
dismissed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
(Raj Kumar, J)
kanchan/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.