IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2853 of 2010 Neelam Raj Construction Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Managing Director Mr. Neelam Kumar, S/O Late Damodar Prasad R/O Mohalla- Habipura, P.O.+P.S.- Soh Sarai, Distt.- Nalanda … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Public Health Engineering Deptt. (Phed), Bihar, Patna 3. The Engineer-In-Chief Cum Additional Commissioner-Cum Special Secretary, Public Health Engineering Deptt. (Phed), Bihar, Patna 4. The Chief Engineer (Mechanical), Public Health Engineering Deptt. (Phed), Bihar, Patna 5. The Joint Secretary, Public Health Engineering Deptt. (Phed), Bihar, Patna … Respondents ----------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Sahay, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anish Kumar, A.C.to S.C.4 ---------------- 05/ 25.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs :- (i) For quashing of Clause 9 of “The Bihar Contractor Enlistment Rules, 2007, mainly issued under notification no. PRA-06/Niyam-03-04/2002/5737 (s)Patna dated 07.05.2007, by the Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department, ,Bihar, Patna, as contained in Annexure-5, which was squarely adopted by the respondent’s department under notification no. 6/Ni-10162/07-552 Patna dated 28.05.2009 (as contained in Annexure 4), which specifically says that clause-9 of said rule shall be extended till next six months from the date of issuance of said notification meaning thereby all existing contractors are required to further renew their registrations including the petitioner within six 2 months in the light of said clause 9 of said adopted Rules-2007 of respondent’s department, otherwise validity of all existing registrations including registration of the petitioner (i.e. legally valid up to 15/12/2011) would lapse automatically. (ii) For passing such other order or orders for which the petitioner is entitled under the law in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3, After considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it is found that similar matters were considered and decided by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.08.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8298 of 2009 and other analogous cases as well as by order dated 19.01.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 15154 of 2009, in which the said Courts had specifically held that the validity of earlier registration under P.H.E.D. Rules, 2005 shall subsist and only after expiry of the earlier registration, the Contractors (petitioners of those writ petitions) could be directed to seek fresh registration. 4. In view of the aforesaid decisions rendered by the two Benches of this Court, this writ petition is allowed with a direction to respondent-authorities not to insist for registration of the petitioner till 15.10.2011 when his current registration is going to expire. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)