IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10718 of 2009 M/S SHALIGRAM SINGH, a registered firm having its office at New Area, Aurangabad (Bihar) and Regional Office-Suresh Colony, Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) through its Proprietor Shaligram Singh, son of Late Yadunandan Singh, Resident of Village- Deokali, Police Station-Dandnagar, District- Aurangabad (Bihar). . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Vishveshweraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Chief Engineer (Communication) North Bihar Wing, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Road Circle, Road Construction Department, Saharsa. 5. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Supaul. 6. The Assistant Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Sup. Division, Raghupur, Supaul. . . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 2/ 27.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is aggrieved by letter no. 1038 dated 4th July, 2009 contained in Annexure-7 issued by Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Supaul (Respondent no.7) whereby he has debarred the petitioner from participating in any future tender. Petitioner entered into an agreement by Annexure-1 for Improvement in Riding Quality Work (IRPQ) on Raghopur Muktab Chowk, Sakhanagar Road in K.M. 9 (P) to 15 K.M. for the year 2007-2008. The total estimate of the work is Rs. 3,37,61,948/-. The work was started on 11.12.2007 and was to be completed on 10.12.2008. The petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that he did not receive any show-cause as contained in Annexure-6 dated 18.06.2009. He further states that the order no. 2131(S) dated 13.03.2009 issued by the Principal Secretary, Road - 2 - Construction Department would not be relevant as the contract was awarded to the petitioner much prior to issuance of the aforesaid letter. He submits that in fact the date of the completion of the work was much prior to show-cause of the aforesaid letter. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that it would appear from letter of the Junior Engineer dated 22.07.2009 as well as Sub- Divisional Officer, Road Construction Department, Raghopur that petitioner is doing his work in right earnest. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner would complete the entire work within two months. Learned counsel for petitioner also submits that there was breach in Kusha Bandh which led to unprecedented miseries and paralyzed entire transportation system from August, 2008 to January, 2009 Mr. P.K. Verma, learned counsel for the State submits that Standard Bidding Document would apply to all the contractors, as the same has been framed prior to 2007. He further submits that if a contractor makes slow progress he can he debarred from participating in future tender, till work is completed. It is submitted that till 04.07.2009 the petitioner had completed only 30 % of the work. Having heard the counsel for the parties. This court observes as follows: That if petitioner files representation before the Engineer- in-Chief for recalling the order by which he has restrained him to participate in any future tender, the same would be disposed of - 3 - within three weeks from the date of receipt / production along with a copy of this order. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Uday/ (S. P. Singh, J.)