IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9082 of 2009 M/S OM CONSTRUCTION, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM THROUGH ITS PARTNER RAM NIGAH SINGH, SON OF RAM BABU SINGH, RESIDENT OF BIBIGANJ, NEAR CANARA BANK DANAPUR CANTT., P.S. – DANAPUR, DISTRICT – PATNA. ………….. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT VISHEWSRAIYA BHAWAN BAILY ROAD, PATNA. 2. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF CUM ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CUM SPECIAL SECRETARY ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT VISHEWSRAIYA BHAWAN BAILY ROAD, PATNA. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, ROAD DIVISION BIHARSHARIF, NALANDA. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER ROAD SUB-DIVISION, BIHARSHARIF, NALANDA. ………….. RESPONDENTS ----------- 03/ 28.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The instant writ application is filed against the Office Letter No. 877 dated 01.06.2009 issued by the respondent Executive Engineer RCD Road Division, Biharsharif whereby petitioner has been debarred from participating in further tenders till he completes the widening and strengthening of Pawapuri – Jalmandir Road from K.M. 0 to 4 for the year 2007-2008 under Agreement No. 52 F2 of 2007-2008. The agreement was signed on 12.03.2008. The work however was to commence from 17.01.2008. The date of completion was 2 16.07.2008. The petitioner states that he could not complete the work on account of various hurdles including encroachments. The petitioner states that full work site was not made available free from all encumbrances for completing the work. He further states that full bitumen was also not available at the depots. The electricity department did not remove the electric polls coming in the way. He submits that the petitioner had to face resistance from the villages. Learned counsel submits that he made various representations in this respect vide his letter dated 13.03.2008, 29.02.2008, 28.04.2008 and 19.05.2008. The petitioner states that he even represented that the land should be demarcated by Government Amin and be made available free of all encroachments. He states that on 23.05.2005 the Executive Engineer communicated to the petitioner to execute the work on land available and not to work on any raiyati land till the land acquisition process is not completed. A copy of letter dated 23.05.2008 of the Executive Engineer is annexed as Annexure – 9. The petitioner states that he still faced resistance from the local villagers. He again drew the attention of the authorities 3 through representations. He submits that he could not complete the work on account of failure on the part of the respondents to provide a clear site on which the work was to be done. He submits that on account of impugned order, his tenders in respect of other works were not being finalized. Mr. P. K. Verma, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has filed an affidavit stating on 04.05.2009 that he will complete the work shortly. This Court observes that in case petitioner files a representation before the Chief Engineer detailing problems faced in course of constructing the road, he will dispose of the same within three weeks’ thereof. In case, if he finds that the petitioner was prevented from sufficient reasons from not completing the work, it would be open for him to recall the prohibition clause imposed by the Executive Engineer in the impugned Letter Bearing No. 877 dated 01.06.2009. It would be also open to the petitioner to represent before the authorities for making payment of the admitted dues. kundan (S. P. Singh, J.)