Patna High Court
Kishore Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The Court held that the writ petition must be dismissed as an alternative statutory remedy is available, and the petitioner should pursue an appeal before the appropriate authority.
Summary
Kishore Kumar Singh, a contractor, challenged a blacklisting order (Letter No. 144 dated 29.01.2026) that barred his registration under the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007 for ten years. He sought quashing of the order, a declaration that the underlying Order No. 154 was not a valid government decision, and a restraining order against any coercive action. The State argued that an alternative statutory remedy—an appeal before the concerned authority—was available. The Court, after hearing both sides, declined to interfere with the blacklisting order, directing the petitioner to file an appeal within 30 days. It held that the writ petition could not be entertained while a statutory remedy exists and consequently disposed of the writ application.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate remedy for a contractor aggrieved by a blacklisting order under the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007?
- Can a High Court entertain a writ petition challenging an administrative order when an alternative statutory appeal is available?
Subjects
- blacklisting
- contractor registration
- writ jurisdiction
- alternative statutory remedy
- administrative order
- Bihar
- High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4699 of 2026
======================================================
Kishore Kumar Singh Son of Late Jwala Singh, Resident of Kshatriya Nagar,
P.S. Aurangabad (T), District- Aurangabad, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Minor Water Resources
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Engineer in Chief, Minor Water Resources Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer, (Planning + Monitoring + Geology), cum Registering
Authority, Minor Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader-4
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
2 31-03-2026 The present writ application has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
“(i) Quashing of the order bearing Letter No.
144 dated 29.01.2026 (Annexure P/5) by which,
the Chief Engineer cum Registering Authority
has blacklisted the Registration of the petitioner
(Registration No. MWRD 1224 C21N5284 Class
– II), for a period of 10 years under Clause 11
(d) (vii) of the Bihar contractors Registration
Rules, 2007 read with Sub Clause 4 of Clause 08
of Order No. 154 dated 18.06.2015.
(ii) Declaration to the effect that no rights and
liabilities could flow out of Order No. 154 dated
18.06.2015 issued by the Road Construction
Department in view of the fact that the same is
not the decision of the government and further
more, the same has not been issued in the name
Patna High Court CWJC No.4699 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
2/3
of his Excellency, the Governor of Bihar in terms
of Rules of executive business coupled with the
fact that the said order has neither been
published in the extra ordinary Gazette of Bihar
nor forms the part of the Tender document or the
Notice Inviting Tender; and
(iii) Restraining the Respondents from taking any
coercive action and giving effect to the order
contained in Letter No. 144 dated 29.01.2026
(Annexure P/ P/5) during the pendency of the
present writ application and/or the without the
leave of this Hon’ble Court.”
2. The petitioner has challenged Letter No. 144 dated
29.01.2026, which has been brought on record as Annexure-P/5
to the writ application.
3. Learned counsel for the State submits that an
efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available to the
petitioner by way of an appeal before respondent No. 1.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
upon consideration of the materials available on record, this
Court is not inclined to interfere in the present writ application
at this stage, in view of the availability of an alternative
statutory remedy.
5. The petitioner shall be at liberty to prefer an appeal
before the appropriate authority within a period of 30 days from
today.
6. In the event such an appeal is filed, the authority
Patna High Court CWJC No.4699 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
3/3
concerned shall consider and decide the same on its own merits,
after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the
stakeholders, and shall endeavour to dispose of the same
expeditiously.
7. With the aforesaid liberty, the present writ
application stands disposed of.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Shailendra Singh, J)
Anushka/-
U
Checking your session…