IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4222 of 2007 M/S TRIMURTI CONSTRUCTION LAXMI CINEMA, M.G. MARG. KHAGARIA, THROUGH ITS PARTNER SHYAM NANDAN PRASAD SINHA, SON OF LATE NAND KISHORE PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA HAJIPUR, P.S. KHAGARIA, DISTRICT KHAGARIA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANISATION (R.E.O.) , BIHAR, PATNA. 3. TH UNDER SECRETARY, RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANISATION, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANISATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANISATION WORKS DIVISION, SAHARSA. 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANISATION, WORKS DIVISION, KHAGARIA. ----------- 5 22/02/2010 The Court is not concerned with the other claims of the petitioner or is not willing to adjudicate on the other claim of the petitioner. The relief or prayer in the present writ application is being confined to the order by virtue of which the petitioner stands black listed in exercise of power under the Bihar Contractors Listing Rules, 1996. The impugned order is annexure-1 and is dated 11.1.2007. The petitioner was given work of construction of road under the Prime Minister Village Road Scheme and an agreement came to be signed between the petitioner and - 2 - respondents State authorities in the year 2004. Six months’ time was granted to the petitioner and the said work was to be completed by 20.8.2004. The work could not be completed leading to cancellation of the contract and even black listing of the petitioner on the basis of show cause issued to him in Annexure-7. From the pleadings and the statements not only made by the petitioner but also the materials on record of the respondents, one fact which does emerge is that there was a devastating flood which hit the area and affected the life and limbs of the people living in that area. The flood had the effect of undoing whatever work had been done by the petitioner and the subsequent efforts made thereafter did not have the required effect of completing the work in time. The petitioner represented before the respondents on this issue. He also demanded certain more indulgence from the department but all those issues have no relevance. Whether the petitioner was entitled to compensation or relief by the respondents within the agreement in the given circumstance, whether he was entitled for revision of rates etc. are not being pressed but his submission is that despite all these facts not - 3 - being in dispute and the helplessness of the petitioner due to act of God, the punishment of rescinding of the contract as well as black listing is unreasonable and excessively harsh. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer twice over though he does accept that in a given situation orders of rescinding of the contract as well as black listing can be passed but the factual matrix to such a decision and the background thereto have to be considered by the relevant authorities. According to him the impugned order contained in Annexure-1 has been passed in a very mechanical fashion without taking into consideration the entirety of the situation. He is not against the cancellation of the contract but the black listing order has the consequence for him which will subsist for a long long time to come. With the materials on record, the Court is of the opinion that the matter of black listing requires to be looked into. The circumstance which led to failure on the part of the petitioner to complete the contract has already been suffered by him by cancellation of the contract which has its effect on the petitioner but in the given circumstance the issue of black listing requires reconsideration. Annexure-1 dated - 4 - 11.01.2007 stands quashed. The matter is remanded back to the authorities for fresh order to be passed in this regard by taking into consideration the entirety of the issues some of which is reflected in the earlier part of the order. This writ application stands disposed of. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)