Patna High Court
Ramjee Singh and CompanyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
The court set aside both the black‑listing order and the appeal dismissal order, remitting the matter to the authorities to act afresh in accordance with Clause 16 and Clause 17 of the contract.
Summary
The petitioner, a Class‑I contractor, completed a water‑resource project and was under a maintenance contract until 2026. The Water Resources Department issued a show‑cause notice and subsequently black‑listed the petitioner for five years under Memo No. 3441/2025, and dismissed its appeal under Memo No. 6281/2025, without invoking the contractual clauses governing defect rectification and maintenance. The petitioner contended that the black‑listing violated natural‑justice principles, Article 14 of the Constitution, and the Bihar Contractor Registration Rules, 2007, as no prior notice under Clause 16 or 17 of the agreement was given. The respondents argued that the rules permitted black‑listing for failure to perform maintenance work. The court held that the department must first invoke the specific contract clauses before imposing any penalty and that the orders were procedurally defective. Consequently, both memoranda were set aside and the matter remitted to the department to proceed afresh in compliance with the contract.
Issues considered
- Whether the black‑listing order under Memo No. 3441/2025 violates principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution.
- Whether the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal under Memo No. 6281/2025 is jurisdictionally valid.
- Whether the department was required to issue notice and invoke Clause 16 and Clause 17 of the contract before imposing a black‑listing penalty.
- Whether the Bihar Contractor Registration Rules, 2007 empower the department to blacklist a contractor without complying with contractual procedural requirements.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Contractor Registration Rules, 2007 — s. Rule 11(d)(ii), Rule 11(ङ)
- Constitution of India — s. Article 14
Subjects
- blacklisting
- contractor registration
- natural justice
- Article 14
- certiorari
- maintenance contract
- breach of contract
- writ petition
- civil writ jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.651 of 2026
======================================================
Ramjee Singh and Company a registered partnership, having its registered
office at Village Rampur, P.O and P.S. -Barahra, Ara, District-Bhojpur, Bihar-
802311 through its authorized partner namely Ashok Kumar Singh (Male),
aged about 50 years, son of Late Janardan Prasad Singh, resident of Village-
Rampur, P.O and P.S.-Barahra, District- Bhojpur, Bihar-802311
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Water Resource Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resource Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Additional Principal Secretary, Water Resource Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Engineer-in-Chief (Head Office), Water Resource Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Chief Engineer, Irrigation Creation, Water Resource Department,
Siwan.
6. The Superintending Engineer, Flying Squad Circle-01, Water Resource
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
7. The Flying Squad, Circle-01, Water Resource Department, Government of
Bihar through the Assistant Engineer, Flying Squad, Circle-01, Water
Resource Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
8. The Assistant Engineer, Flying Squad Circle 1, Water Resource Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
9. The Executive Engineer, Flying Squad Division 4, Water Resource
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
10. The Executive Engineer, Water Resource Department, Saran Canal Division,
Mairwa (Siwan).
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashish Giri, Sr. Advocate
: Ms. Riya Giri, Advocate
: Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General
: Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Patna High Court CWJC No.651 of 2026 dt.25-02-2026
2/10
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA)
Date : 25-02-2026
Heard Mr. Ashish Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr.
Amish Jha, learned counsel for the Respondents.
2. Following are the reliefs sought for in the present writ
application:-
“(i) To issue a writ/order/ direction in the
nature of certiorari to set aside order contained
in Memo No.3441 dated 24.07.2025 issued
under the signature of the Engineer-in-Chief
(Head Office), Water Resource Department,
Government of Bihar. Patna by which the
petitioner has been blacklisted for a period of 5
years. (Annexure-P 9. Page No328).
(ii) To issue a writ/order/ direction in the nature
of certiorari to set aside order contained in
Memo No. 6281 dated 14. 11.2025 issued under
the signature of the Principal Secretary, Water
Resource Department Government of Bihar,
Patna by which the appeal of petitioner has
been dismissed mechanically (Annexure-P-14
Page No.369).
(iii) To produce the entire enquiry report
submitted by the Flying Squad, Circle-01, Water
Resource Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna and quash the same as it is arbitrary,
malafide, perverse and violative of principles of
natural justice and Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
(iv) To produce the order of the competent
authority by which decision has been taken to
Patna High Court CWJC No.651 of 2026 dt.25-02-2026
3/10
blacklist the petitioner as mentioned in the
Memo No. 3441 dated 24.07.2025 issued under
the signature of the Engineer-in-Chief (Head
Office), Water Resource Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna, and quash the
same being violative of principles of natural
justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.
(v) To pass interim /ex-parte interim order
staying Memo No. 3441 dated 24.07.2025
issued under the signature of the Engineer-in-
Chief (Head Office), Water Resource
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna by
which the petitioner has been blacklisted for a
period of 5 years and/or staying the order
contained in Memo No.6281 dated 14.11.2025
issued under the signature of the Principal
Secretary, Water Resource Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna by which the
appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed
mechanically and/or the petitioner be allowed
to participate in other tenders, during the
pendency of the present writ application.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is a registered Class-I contractor under the Water
Resource Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. The genesis of
the present case is that a notice inviting tender was issued by the
office of the Executive Engineer, Water Resource Department,
Saran Canal Division, Mairwa, Siwan (respondent no.10) bearing
Short NIT No.01 SBD/2017-18 dated 21.12.2017. The petitioner
possessing the required qualification had participated successfully
in the tender process and later on the petitioner was issued letter of
Patna High Court CWJC No.651 of 2026 dt.25-02-2026
4/10
acceptance dated 25.01.2018. Thereafter an agreement dated
01.02.2018 was executed between the parties, wherein date of
completion of project was 20.03.2019, the defect liability period
was from 21.03.2019 to 20.03.2021 and the maintenance period
was 21.03.2021 to 20.03.2026. The petitioner duly completed the
work in question on 20.03.2019. Thereafter the petitioner also
completed the work of defect liability period on 20.03.2021 and
currently, the petitioner is engaged in maintenance work which in
terms of the agreement is from 21.03.2021 to 20.03.2026.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has received a show-cause notice dated 06.06.2025
(Annexure-7) issued under the signature of the Engineer-in-Chief
(Head Office), Water Resource Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna (Respondent no.4). In the said notice it was requested to the
petitioner to reply to the show cause notice within 15 days as to
why petitioner’s registration number should not be blacklisted for
the reported allegations as mentioned in inspection report of the
department of flying squad.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before
the conduction of investigation by the Flying Squad, Zone-01, the
petitioner was not issued any notice. Thereafter, the petitioner has
submitted its reply vide letter dated 20.06.2025 but the Respondent
Patna High Court CWJC No.651 of 2026 dt.25-02-2026
5/10
no.4 without properly considering the reply of the petitioner,
blacklisted the petitioner for a period of five years vide Memo No.
3441 dated 24.07.2025 (Annexure P/9).
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been blacklisted under the special rule namely Bihar
Contractor Registration rules, 2007, under Rule 11(d)(ii) and as
per rules the petitioner also preferred an appeal under Rule 11 (ङ)
which was also rejected by the respondent authorities.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondent authorities without issuing any notice under Clause-16
of the agreement, blacklisted the petitioner. The said clause is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
CLAUSE 16 Action in case, work not done as
per specifications
All works under or in course of execution or
executed in pursuance of the contract shall at all
times be open and accessible to the inspection
and supervision of the Engineer-in- Charge, his
authorized subordinates in charge of the work
and all the superior officers, officer of the Quality
Control Organisation of the Department and of
the Cabinet (Technical) Vigilance, and the
contractor shall, at all times, during the usual
working hours and at all other times at which
reasonable notice of the visit of such officers has
been given to the contractor, either himself be
present to receive orders and instructions or have
a responsible agent duly accredited in writing,
present for that purpose. Orders given to the
Contractor's agent shall be considered to have the
Patna High Court CWJC No.651 of 2026 dt.25-02-2026
6/10
same force as if they had been given to the
contractor himself.
If it shall appear to the Engineer-in-Charge or his
higher authority or his authorised subordinates in
charge of the work or to the Cabinet (Technical)
Vigilance or his subordinate officers, that any
work has been executed with unsound, imperfect,
or unskillful workmanship, or with materials or
article provides by him for the execution of the
work which are unsound or of a quality inferior to
that contracted or otherwise not in accordance
with the contract the contractor shall, on demand
in writing which shall be made within the period
specified in schedule - F of contract data from the
Engineer-in-Charge specifying the work,
materials or articles complained of
notwithstanding that the same may have been
passed, certified and paid for forthwith rectify, or
remove and reconstruct the work so specified in
whole or part, as the case may require or as the
case may be, remove the materials or articles so
specified and provide other proper and suitable
materials or articles at his own charge and cost.
In the event of the contractor failing do so within
a period specified by the Engineer-in-Charge in
his demand aforesaid, then the contractor shall be
liable to pay compensation at the same rate as
under clause 2 of the contract (for non-
completion of the work in time) for this default.
In such case the Engineer-in-Charge may not
accept the item of work at the rates applicable
under the contract but may accept such items at
reduced rates as the competent authority may
consider reasonable during the preparation of on
account bills or final bill if the item is so
acceptable without detriment to the safety and
utility of the item and the structure and incidental
items rectified, or removed and re-executed at the
risk and cost or contractor. Decision of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.651 of 2026 dt.25-02-2026
7/10
Engineer-in-Charge to be conveyed in writing in
respect of the same will be final and binding on
the contractor.”
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further refers to
Clause 17 of the agreement which is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“CLAUSE 17 Contractor liable for Damages
defects during Maintenance period
If the contractor or his working people or
servants shall break, deface, injure or destroy
any part of building in which they may be
working, or any building, road, road curb,
fence, enclosure, water pipe, cables, drains,
electric or telephone post or wired, trees, grass
or grassland, or cultivated ground contiguous
to the premises on which the work or any part is
being executed, or if any damage shall happen
to the work while in progress, from any cause
whatever or if any defect, shrinkage or other
faults appear in the work within defect liability
period after a certificate final or otherwise of
its completion shall have been given by the
Engineer-in-Charge as aforesaid arising out of
defect or improper materials or workmanship
the contractor shall upon receipt of a notice in
writing on that behalf make the same good at
his own expense or in default the Engineer-in-
Charge cause the same to be made good by
other workmen and deduct the expense from
any sums that may be due or at any time
thereafter may become due to the contractor, or
from his security deposit except for the portion
pertaining to asphalted work which is governed
by sub-para (iii) of clause 35 or the proceeds of
sale thereof or sufficient option thereof. The
security deposit of the contractor shall not be
refunded before the expiry of defected liability
Patna High Court CWJC No.651 of 2026 dt.25-02-2026
8/10
period after the issue of the certificate final or
otherwise, of completion of work, or till the
final bill has been prepared and passed
whichever is later.
In case of Maintenance and Operation works of
Electrical & Mechanical services, the security
deposit deducted from contractors shall be
refunded within one month from the date of
final payment or within one month from the date
of completion of the maintenance contract
which ever is earlier.”
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per
terms of agreement dated 01.02.2018, the clause 16 of the
agreement provides for “Action in case, work not done as per
specification” and as per clause 17 of the agreement provides for
“Contractor liable for damages defects during maintenance
period”.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the
present case no such notice for any defect in the work of the
petitioner was given and without evoking the aforesaid clause the
present case will not fall under the category of Bihar Contractor
Registration rules, 2007, under Rule 11(d)(ii) and the action of the
respondents of blacklisting the petitioner is without jurisdiction.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007 empowers the
department to blacklist the contractor if he does not fulfill the
terms and condition of the agreement and in the present case,
Patna High Court CWJC No.651 of 2026 dt.25-02-2026
9/10
while entering into the agreement, the petitioner had agreed to
carry out the maintenance of the road in question for a period of
five years (2011-2006). Despite repeated request/reminders made
to the petitioner from 2021 to 2025 to complete the maintenance
work otherwise penal action will be taken against the petitioner,
the petitioner chooses not to respond to the said notices and also
did not start the maintenance work. The department had no other
option than to take steps of blacklisting of the petitioner for the
negligence and not fulfilling the terms and condition which he had
agreed to while entering into agreement.
12. We have heard the counsel for the parties. It
transpires that the respondent authorities before passing the
impugned order must evoke clause 16 and 17 of the agreement and
if the petitioner does not fulfill the term and condition of clause 16
and 17 of the agreement then the respondent authorities have to
take curative action against the petitioner.
13. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 24.07.2025
(Annexure-P/9) and order dated 14.11.2025(Annexure-P/14) are
set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent authorities
who shall proceed afresh in accordance with law as well clause 16
and 17 of the agreement.
14. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.651 of 2026 dt.25-02-2026
10/10
15. Pending Application(s), if any shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 16.03.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.