Patna High Court
Masroom Ahmad S. ConstructionversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The court held that it will not interfere with the blacklist order as an alternative statutory remedy is available, and dismissed the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Masroom Ahmad S. Construction, filed a writ petition seeking the quashing of a notice to show cause and a subsequent order that blacklisted its registration for ten years on allegations of submitting false securities. The petitioner also sought a restraining order against the respondents from giving effect to the blacklist order. The respondents argued that an alternative statutory remedy—an appeal before the State of Bihar—was available. The High Court held that, given the availability of this alternative remedy, it would not interfere with the administrative action at the writ stage. The Court directed the petitioner to prefer an appeal within 30 days and disposed of the writ application. Consequently, the blacklist order remains in force pending the outcome of the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the notice to show cause and the blacklist order can be quashed by a writ petition.
- Whether the court can entertain the writ when an alternative statutory remedy is available.
- Whether the petitioner must first prefer an appeal before the appropriate authority.
Subjects
- writ petition
- blacklisting
- contractor registration
- alternative statutory remedy
- administrative law
- Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007
- quashing notice
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4945 of 2026
======================================================
Masroom Ahmad S. Construction having its office at Alinagar, P.S.
Aurangabad Town, District Aurangabad, Bihar through its Proprietor
Mohammad Shane Ali, aged about 27 years, Male, Son of Mohammad Salam
Khan, Resident of Ali Nagar Aurangabad, P.S. Aurangabad Town, District
Aurangabad, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Water Resources
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Engineer in Chief (Head Quarter), Water Resources Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer, Flood Control and Drainage, Water Resources
Department, Samastipur, District Samastipur, Bihar.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Flood Control Circle, Samastipur, District
Samastipur, Bihar.
5. The Executive Engineer, Flood Control Division, Dalsinghsarai, District
Samastipur, Bihar.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Amish Kumar, AC to AG
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
2 07-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. Following is the relief sought for in the present writ
petition:-
“1(i) Quashing of the Notice to Show Cause as
contained in Letter bearing Memo No. 250 dated
14.01.2026 (Annexure P/8) by which the Engineer-
in-Chief has directed the petitioner to submit a
Patna High Court CWJC No.4945 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
2/3
reply within 15-days as to why, the Registration be
not blacklisted for period of 10-years for the
allegation of having submitted false Securities and
Document(s) along with the bid in terms of order
bearing Memo No. 201 dated 14.03.2016;
(ii) Quashing of the consequential Order bearing
Memo No. 1206 dated 26.02.2026 (Annexure
P/10) by which, the Engineer-in-Chief-cum
Registering Authority, without considering the
reply filed by the petitioner has proceeded to
blacklist the Registration of the petitioner for a
period of 10-years in terms of Rule 11 (Ka) (vii) of
the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007
read with Departmental Order No. 201 dated
14.03.2016; and
(iii) Restraining the Respondents from giving
effect to Order bearing Memo No. 1206 dated
26.02.2026 during the pendency of the present
writ application and/or the without the leave of
this Hon'ble Court.”
3. Mr. Amish Kumar, 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.4945 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
3/3
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
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
preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing
of such appeal.
7. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ
application stands disposed of.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Shailendra Singh, J)
U.K./-BKS
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.