IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8886 of 2010 M/S ANAND CONSTRUCTION & CO. through its one of the partner Mr. Bishwanath Prasad son of late Bandhu Mahto, resident of Mohalla – Kagazi, Main Road, P.O. Biharshaif, P.S. Biharsharif, District – Nalanda, State – Bihar. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Engineer-in-Chief cum Additional Commissioner cum Special Secretary, Rural Works Department, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer -1, Rural Works Department, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 5. The Chief Engineer-4 (HQ), Rural Works Department, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 6. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Circle, Patna. 7. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Biharsharif (Nalanda). ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Manish Sahay. For the State : Mr. Kumar Udai Bhanu roy, GA 4. --------- 02. 19.05.2010 Petitioner’s name figures at serial Nos.51 and 52 in the list of defaulters issued by notification No.8929 dated 29.10.2009. The list has been issued under the signature of one Bishwanath Choudhary, Chief Engineer – 4 (Headquarters), Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, respondent no.5 Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to demonstrate to the Court the irrationality of the decision on the basis of official communications and decisions which form part and parcel of the writ application. With regard to construction of a road on N H – 31 to Gulni via Nepura, petitioner draws the attention of this Court to a communication contained in annexure-3. This is a letter dated 14.9.2009 2 written by the Executive Engineer, Biharsharif to the Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Circle, Patna. The letter states in detail the reason why the agreement/contract should be closed. The last stretch of the road cannot be completed because of certain communal tensions between the villagers. In the above noted background, if the petitioner is put on the defaulter list, then it is a clear case of non-application of mind and probably respondents have gone mechanically by looking at the day for completion of the project. With regard to the work relating to serial no.51 petitioner has brought on record a supplementary agreement which was entered between the respondents and the petitioner in view of the revised estimate and DPR, which was required to be re-drawn looking at the additional work, which was required to be done for completion of the work. The supplementary agreement is Annexure-1/II and is dated 17.3.2010. Let the petitioner file an application along with supporting material before respondent No.5, the Chief Engineer-IV (Headquarters). Respondent No.5 will thereafter look into the matter and if prima facie what is observed by the Court stands corroborated, which is any way based on official communications, then an order will have to be passed removing the petitioner from the list of defaulters. The Court 3 expects a decision on the issue within a period of four weeks from the date the petitioner files his application along with a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed of with above direction. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J )