IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12985 of 2010 M/S Sharda Construction a partnership firm having its office at New Area, Maharajganj Road, Aurangabad, Bihar through it’s Partner Smt. Geeta Singhwife of Sri Kaushal Kumar Singh, Resident of New Area, Aurangabad, P.s. & Aurangabad. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Executive Engineer, Road Division-1 Road Construction Department Aurangabad. ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Raj Kishore Prasad, Adv. Mr. Tej Bahadur Roy, Adv. For the Respondents :- Mr. P.K Verma, A.A.G -XI 3 23.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has challenged order dated 20.05.2010. (Annexure-6) by which the Executive Engineer directed deduction of a sum of Rs. 07, 26,972/- from the amount of security deposited by the petitioner and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. It is not in dispute that petitioner is a registered Class 1 Contractor and on the basis of advertisement by the authorities, petitioner’s tender, being the lowest, was accepted and agreement was executed between the parties on 20.03.2007 (Annexure-1) for widening and strengthening of Amba-Nabinagar Road in between kilometer 0 to 24 under plan head for the year 2006-07. It is also not in dispute that petitioner completed the work and payment was made to him by the authorities. 4. The dispute arouse when the aforesaid Executive Engineer 2 sent letter dated 09.04.2010(Annexure-4) asking the petitioner to pay Rs. 7, 26, 972/- as per the audit report. This letter was followed by letter dated 02.05.2010 (Annexure-6) by which the aforesaid Executive Engineer deducted the said amount from the amount of Security deposited by the petitioner. 5. From the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel it is quite apparent that the said orders were passed and letters were written by the Executive Engineer without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to place his case with respect to the said amount. Hence it is a clear case of violation of rule of Principles of Natural Justice due to which the said impugned order cannot be sustained in law and is accordingly quashed. 6. The said Executive Engineer will be at liberty to issue notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner as this Court has not considered the merit of the case and the Executive Engineer shall be free to pass any order which he finds proper and legal. With this observation this writ petition is disposed of. Prakash (S.N.Hussain, J.)