IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6215 of 2009 M/S DHANPAT PRASAD, through its one of the partner Mr. Sanjay Kumar, son of late Binda Prasad, resident of Mohalla – Linepar, P.O.+P.S. Nawada, District-Nawada, Pin-805110, State – Bihar. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Engineer-in-Chief cum Additional Commissioner cum Special Secretary, Rural Works Department, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer – I, Rural Works Department, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Circle, Gaya. 6. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Nawada. ----------- For the petitioner : M/S. D K Sinha, Senior Advocate & Manish Sahay. For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, AC to AAG – 9. ------- 04. 13.01.2010 Agreement in question is agreement No. 15F 2 of 2005-06 which related to widening and strengthening of N H-31 starting from Fatehpur (Kakolat More) to Kakolat Fall Road. The work was awarded to the petitioner by the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department of Nawada. The time frame fixed for the work was six months beginning 24.2.2006 and ending 23.8.2006. Admitted position is that the work has not been completed even till date. Petitioner has tried to explain the difficulty in completing the work on the basis of stopping of quarrying from what is known as Gondi quarry and in absence of supply of chips and materials he has not been able to complete the work. Certain communications have been brought on record to show that the contractors in the district of Nawada were facing problems because of stoppage of quarrying and alternative arrangements were not worked out immediately. - 2 - Petitioner has expressed his desire to complete the work. Despite all this, the contract of the petitioner has been rescinded and recommendation for blacklisting has been made vide order dated 14.3.2009 contained in Annexure-7 which is under challenge in the present writ application. The stand of the respondents to the challenge shown by the petitioner is that nothing stated by the petitioner is correct or bonafide. There is failure on his part to complete the work within the time frame, including the extended time, which he has availed and the reason stated for non-completion of the work about the stoppage of quarrying from Gondi Pahar is misplaced because the quarrying was stopped only on 4.4.2007. Many other persons in that area have carried on the work even after stoppage of quarrying by procuring materials from alternative sources. One of the partners of the petitioner had also given an affidavit to the department that he will complete the work by December, 2008. But that was only an affidavit without any follow-up action taken to meet the commitment. Certain communications have also been brought on record to show that the petitioner had been given indulgence and had been asked to expedite the completion of the work beyond the period of completion of work, agreed between the parties. Nothing of the kind has been done till date. Left with no option, looking at the public interest Annexure-7 has come to be issued. With the material having been brought on record and from a plain reading of the averments made in the writ application as well - 3 - as the counter affidavit, the negligence or failure on the part of the petitioner to complete the work in terms of the agreement is writ large. The explanation or the reason offered by him do not match or fill up the gap between the period the agreement had to be completed and subsequent events which have occurred. From what has been noted above, the decision does not smack of any arbitrariness or unfairness. The petitioner has not succeeded in making out a case for interference with the impugned order i.e. Annexure-7. The writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)