IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14950 of 2009 1. BAIJNATH NIRMAN INDIA PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR NIRANJAN KESHAV S/O SRI BAIJNATH SHARMA R/O EAST GANDHI MAIDAN JEHANABAD, P.S. & DISTT.- JEHANABAD Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SECRETARY RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. CHIEF ENGINEER-4 RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT (HQ), GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. CHIEF ENGINEER-1 RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, CIRCLE GAYA 6. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER RURAL WORK DEPARTMENT, WORK DIVISION, AURANGABAD ----------- 02. 10.11.2009 Initially the petitioner figured in the list of 147 contractors who came to be debarred by the respondent authorities on the ground that the work allotted to them has not been completed within a time- frame. Subsequently on the reappraisal of the matter yet another decision dated 24.8.2009 came to be issued where three contractors were taken out from that list. Petitioner happens to be one of them, whose name figures at serial No.3. By virtue of this official notification the order of debarment stands withdrawn. But despite such order having been passed on 24.8.2009, Annexure-7 has been passed by the Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Bihar Circle, preventing the petitioner from the work for which he has been a successful bidder. This communication dated 29.8.2009 is under challenge as Annexure-7. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in face of Annexure-4, Annexure-7 is misplaced because it has been passed without taking into consideration the order contained in Annexure-4. If there is no debarment operating against the petitioner, then obviously there is either communication gap between - 2 - the authorities or it is a case of oversight why Annexure-7 came to be issued. Learned counsel representing the State certifies the authenticity of Annexure-4. If that be so, Annexure-7 stands quashed and the writ application is allowed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)