IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1446 of 2009 M/S RAMBRIKSHA SINGH, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM THROUGH ITS PARTNER SRI SHEO SHANKAR PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE RAMBRIKSH SINGH R/O JAIPRAKASH NAGAR, KARMA ROAD , AURANGABAD, P.S. &DISTT- AURANGABAD. ---------------petitioner-Appellant. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE ENGINEER- IN- CHIEF, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER(TRAFFIC), SOUTH BIHAR WING, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, MAGADH ROAD CIRCLE, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT GAYA 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, ROAD DIVISION-1 AURANGABAD 6. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, ROAD SUB DIVISION -1 AURANGABAD. ---------------Respondent-Respondents. ----------- 2 15-04-2010 Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior counsel along with Mr. Raj Kishore Prasad, for the appellant and Mr. S.R. Sharan, A.C. to A.A.G. XI for the State. Questioning the legal propriety of the order dated 16.10.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in 2 C.W.J.C. No.8828 of 2009, the present appeal has been filed. On a scrutiny of the order passed by the learned Single Judge it transpires he has declined to interfere with the allegation made by the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division No.1, Aurangabad, whereby he has found the appellant non responsive for his failure to execute the work within the time granted under the agreement executed by him and the Executive Engineer. It is also manifest from the order that the contract has been rescinded by the Executive Engineer. It is urged by Mr. Giri, learned Senior counsel that the learned Single Judge had fallen into grave error by directing the appellant to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction or the departmental authorities. It is submitted by Mr. Giri, that under the Bihar Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 a civil suit is barred. The said position is not disputed by Mr. Sharan, learned counsel for the State. 3 On a perusal of the said Act it transpires that a Tribunal has been constituted under the Act and sections 8 and 9 deal with reference to the Tribunal and making of award. In view of aforesaid, we modify the order passed by the learned Single Judge and grant liberty to the appellant to move the Tribunal under the aforesaid Act. An apprehension was expressed by Mr. Giri, the learned Senior counsel that because of the decision of the contract, he will not be allowed to participate in other tendering process. On a query being made, Mr. Giri, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-contractor submits that the appellant– contractor has not been black listed. In view of aforesaid, we are only inclined to observe, that if the appellant has not been black listed and there is no prohibition under the Act, the appellant should not be debarred for the simple reason that debarring one to participate in the process of selections has to be backed by law. 4 The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (Dipak Misra, C.J.) Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)