IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5859 of 2009 M/S RAMBRIKSHA SINGH, a partnership firm through its partner Sri Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh, son of late Rambriksh Singh, resident of Jaiprakash Nagar, Karma Road, Aurangabad, P.S. & District – Aurangabad. _______________ Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer, National Highway Wing, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Superintending Engineer, National Highway Circle, Dehri-on- sone. 6. The Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, Aurangabad. __________ Respondents For the petitioner : M/S. Raj Kishore Prasad & Tej Bahadur Roy. For the State : Mr. P K Verma, AAG XI. ----------- 03. 04.12.2009 Petitioner is before this Court in the present writ application pleading arbitrariness and discrimination in matter of extension of time for completion of work on National Highway No. 98 from Kilometer 75 to Kilometer 89 relating to work for IRQP for the year 2006-07 and in the manner in which such a request has been turned down by the highest authority concerned. Submission of the counsel is that in terms of the Clauses, contained in Annexure-2, specially Clause 5, the petitioner had a right to claim extension of time for completion of work if the grounds and material supported such a claim. Petitioner made an application to the Executive Engineer vide Annexure-3. Reason for hindrance in the work and for the period of extension of time has been indicated - 2 - therein. It was acted upon at various levels and recommendation in favour of the petitioner came to be made but ultimately, when the file travelled to the Principal Secretary the issue was not taken up in right spirit and the whole decision got derailed. Submission made at the bar seems to be borne out from the annexures and the file notings, which have been brought on record as Annexure-6 by the petitioner obtained under the Right to Information Act. There are two primary submissions which have been made at the bar. Firstly, that the final decision taken by the respondents dated 15.5.2009, which has been annexed as Annexure-C to the counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents, is a totally non- speaking order if not a cryptic order, which does not disclose the reason for rejection of extension of time made by the petitioner. Secondly, that there is no requirement in terms of the agreement for a decision making beyond the level of the Executive Engineer. The other argument is that even if a decision has to be based on the approval of the superiors for which there is no requirement, the superior must apply their mind to the given facts and it is not whims and fancy of any individual, howsoever he may be, to turn down such request without any substantial basis. With the recommendation for extension having been made right up to the level of the Engineer-in-Chief in favour of the petitioner, obviously, if final decision not to grant extension of time has been taken then something much more loaded reason is required - 3 - in the order. Since there is failure on the part of the respondents to indicate as to why authorities have suddenly taken an about-turn in this regard, the impugned order dated 15.5.2009, contained in Annexure-C to the counter affidavit, stands quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Chief Engineer, National Highway, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, to reconsider the matter and take a decision preferably within three months from the date of production/communication of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)