IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13733 of 2009 MAA MANGLA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED through its Managing Director Ram Naresh Sharma, son of late-Ambika Sharma, Resident of New Area, Nutan Nagar, P.S.-Civil Lines, Gaya, District-Gaya. …….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Chief Engineer-4(Head Quarter), Rural Works Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Magadh Circle, Gaya. 6. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Gaya. 7. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Jehanabad. 8. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Aurangabad. ……..Respondents. ----------- 02. 28.10.2009 The statement made in the present writ application is that based on a communication issued by the Chief Engineer-4( Head quarter), Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar the petitioner stands debar from future contract because he has not completed the assigned work within the timeframe. The communication is dated 31.07.2009. Submission of the learned counsel is that no doubt the work in question has fallen behind the scheduled time but the substantial progress has been made which would be evident from various communications made with several Officers or the Executive Engineers of the area concerned. There has 2 been genuine practical problems which has delayed the completion of the project and it was also brought to the notice to the local authorities. Learned counsel for the State submits that the decision had to be taken by the State Government since large number of contractors had fallen foul of the commitment they had made in the contract which was entered between them and the State. Annexure-1 contains the list of such contractors and petitioner happens to be one of them. This Court does not want to get into the dispute or the nity gritty of the reasons why the petitioner has not been able to complete the assignment but the Court is not unmindful of certain reasons which are prevalent in the State. How much of it is genuine and how much is imaginary can best be looked into by the State authorities. The writ application stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner that he shall approach Respondent No. 3, the Chief Engineer-4(Head quarter) and give a categorical commitment with regard to the completion of the projects which he has in his hand, with his explanations. If the commitment and the explanations are cogent and valid then Respondent No. 3 will have occasion to allow the petitioner to complete 3 the work and take him off from the list of debarred contractors but if not then he shall pass a reasoned order and state the reasons for sticking with the earlier decision. The writ application stands disposed off with the above observations. Shageer (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)