IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1254 of 2010 CHANDRAYAN CONTRACTORS PVT .LIMITED R/O VILLAGE - BARIARPUR, P.O.MOTIHARI, DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN THROUGH SURENDRA PRASAD VERMA S/O LATE RAMDAS VERMA , R/O KALYAN BIHAR COLONY, AMBEDKAR PATH, PS. RUKANPURA, P.O.-B.V.COLLEGE, DISTRICT-PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT SICHAI BHAWAN, PATNA 3. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF MIDDLE WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT SICHAI BHAWAN, PATNA 4. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF (NORTH), WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT SICHAI BHAWAN, PATNA 5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT ANISHABAD, PATNA 6. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, FLOOD CONTROL PLANNING AND MONETORING CIRCLE SICHAI BHAWAN, PATNA 7. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUNPUN FLOOD PREVENTION CIRCLE ANISHABAD, PATNA 8. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, FLOOD CENTRAL DIVISION MOKAMA CAMP, BAKHTIYARPUR (PATNA) 9. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, FLOOD CONTROL SUB- DIVISION SARMERA, DISTT-NALANDA 10. THE JUNIOR ENGINEER FLOOD CONTROL SUB - DIVISION SARMERA, DIST-NALANDA ----------- 06. 18.03.2010 Vide order dated 27.10.2009 issued by the Engineer-in-Chief (Middle), Water Resources Department (Respondent No.3), petitioner has been declared a defaulter. This order contained in Annexure-8 is under challenge in the present writ application to be an arbitrary action. Petitioner was granted work for Flood Control and Erosion Preventive Work in village Dariyapur Dih, Block- Barahiya left bank of Harohar river. Petitioner states that he has completed substantial portion of work whereupon he was advised 2 by the respondents to stop any further work in this regard. After the work was stopped, respondents decided to hold the petitioner guilty of not completing the work within the specified time and declared him a defaulter. From the pleadings which has emerged it seems that the nature of work being such, after a while respondents perceived that there was no threat of any flood or erosion, they decided to go slow or have a re-thinking on the work assigned in favour of the petitioner. When the petitioner carried out the dictates of the respondents the same was held out against him on the allegation that he has failed to complete the work within the time-frame. It is the categorical stand of the petitioner that even now if he is given opportunity, he is willing to complete the work within the time frame to be fixed by the respondents. In the counter affidavit certain explanations have been offered by the respondents but the above basic fact is not totally disputed. Effort has been made to justify the blacklisting order contained in Annexure-8. The Court had adjourned this matter twice over to know the stand of the respondents whether they are willing to allow the petitioner to complete the work within a time-frame or go by their communications of stopping the work which has been carried out by the petitioner. No affidavit is coming forth in this regard. In other words, the respondents are not really in a position to explain the dichotomy of their conduct and action against the 3 petitioner. In view of the above stated circumstance there seems to be arbitrariness in the decision to declare the petitioner as a defaulter because respondents cannot take advantage of their own action as well as hold out their communication for stoppage of work and still declare the petitioner to be a defaulter. The order contained in Annexure-8 dated 27.10.2009 is hereby quashed and the writ application is allowed. Respondents will be well advised to take further action on the issue of completion of work or abandoning the work based on the decision taken in this regard. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J )