IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13505 of 2010 M/S VATSA CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD KASTURBA PATH,NORTH SRI KRISHNA PURI, PATNA, P.S. SRI KRISHNA PURI, DISTT-PATNA THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SRI KISHORE KUMAR SINGH , S/O LATE JANKI PRASAD SINGH R/O KASTURBA PATH, NORTH SRI KRISHNA PURI, PATNA, P.S. SRI KRISHNA PURI, DISTT-PATNA. …… PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT VISHESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT VISHESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, PATNA. 3. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF CUM ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CUM SPECIAL SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT BIHAR, PATNA, VISHESWARAIYA BHAWAN, PATNA. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KENDRIYA NIRUPAN SANGHATAN, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (YATAYAT), NORTH BIHAR UPBHAG, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT DARBHANGA. 6. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, NORTH BIHAR CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR. 7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, ROAD DIVISION SITAMARHI, DISTT- SITAMARHI. ……. RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. S. N. Singh, Advocate. For the State : M/s P.K. Verma, A.A.G V. with Prabhat Kumar Sharan, A.C. to A. A. G. V. ----------- 04/ 27.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 22.06.2009, by which the registration bearing no. M.U.A.-Pratham-A-527/94 path of the petitioner was put in blacklisting under the provisions of Rule 11(K), (ii), (v) of 2 the Bihar Contractor Registration Rule, 2007; (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for the sake of brevity) and also challenging the appellate order dated 24.07.2009 passed by the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar; and for restraining the respondents from floating any tender for widening and strengthening of Sitamarhi-Riga-Dheng road from Kilometer 00 to 23.02 kilometer in Sitamarhi district under plan head for the year 2006-2007 at the risk and cost of the petitioner; and for permitting the petitioner to complete the rest of the aforesaid contract work; and directing the respondents to make payment of the bills for the work done by the petitioner as well as for other ancillary reliefs. 3. The claim raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that before passing the aforesaid order of blacklisting sufficient opportunity was not given to the petitioner nor his petition for time pressed before the authorities concerned had been considered in proper perspective as the petitioner had sought one month time because he was not well and was suffering from depression due to his earlier incarceration in jail and he was not in a healthy state of mind to file a show cause without the authority supplying relevant papers. Hence, he claims that the impugned orders of the authorities concerned are against the principle of natural justice and cannot be sustained as just and proper orders. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents refutes the claim of the petitioner and states that several opportunities were given to the petitioner, but inspite of that he did 3 not take any step nor filed any show cause in the matter and filed frivolous application merely to delay the matter. He further submits that his claim for ailment and operation etc. were also baseless and frivolous and that he was sent to jail when a criminal case was lodged against him for assaulting the Government authorities. He further submits that the petitioner had filed an appeal in which he had taken a frivolous plea that he could not file any time petition on 19.06.2009 due to Holiday although there was no Holiday on that date and the authorities concerned were sitting in their office which was proved by record. 5. From the arguments of the parties as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the petitioner is a registered contractor and for widening and strengthening of Sitamarhi-Riga-Dheng Road from 0 KM to 23.02 KM in Sitamarhi district tender was invited vide publication of notice on 11.02.2006 in ‘Times of India’ by the Road Construction Department. Several tenders were filed and ultimately the authorities decided to accept the tender of the petitioner for Rs.1262.50281 Lacs and after completion of all the formalities, agreements were signed and executed on 20.03.2007 in between the petitioner and the respondent Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division Sitamarhi and thereafter the work was awarded to the petitioner. 6. It is also evident that on 26.03.2009 a show cause notice was given to the petitioner with regard to non-completion of work within time and violation of terms of the agreement, but 4 neither the petitioner filed any show cause, nor he took any step to complete the work. Thereafter vide letter dated 15.04.2009 the petitioner was stopped from taking any part in the tender by the authorities concerned, but again the petitioner did not respond nor took any step for completion of the work allotted to him. In the aforesaid circumstances vide order dated 06.06.2009, the petitioner’s agreement was cancelled, whereafter the petitioner assaulted and threatened the authorities of the Road Construction Department of Sitamarhi due to which F.I.R. No.198 of 2009 was lodged against him. 7. It was only thereafter that a letter dated 08.06.2009 (Annexure-14) was issued by the authorities to the petitioner to file a show cause within seven days as to why his registration should not be black listed under Rule 11(Ka) (ii), (v) of the Rules. Thereafter the petitioner sent letter dated 15.06.2009 to the authorities concerned stating that 15 days time be given to him along with relevant papers so that he may file show cause. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case on 06.02.2009 the petitioner was given three days time by the authorities concerned, but the said period was not utilized by the petitioner nor any reply was given and hence on 22.06.2009 the Engineer-in-Chief-cum- Commissioner- cum Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar considered the entire matter in detail and passed the impugned order black listing the registration of the company. 8. Against the said order, the petitioner filed CWJC 5 No.7635 of 2009 which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court on 16.07.2009 with a direction to the authority concerned to dispose of the appeal which was filed by the petitioner under Section 13 of the Bihar Contract Rules 2007 by 07th of August, 2009. 9. In the said appeal, the petitioner had stated that on 19.06.2009, he wanted to file a petition for time before the Engineer-in-chief, but he could not do so due to the strike. The appellate court specifically found that the authorities were not on strike and they were holding their office on the said date, but inspite of that the petitioner did not file any petition for time. It was also found that the petitioner had never filed any show cause inspite of opportunity being given to him. Accordingly, the said appeal was dismissed by the Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar by the impugned order dated 24.07.2009 (Annexure- 19). 10. From the provision of Rule 11(Ka) (ii) (v) it is quite apparent that if a contractor is violating the terms of the agreement and the direction of the authorities and if he assaults or threatens any authority the registration of his firm has to be black listed. 11. From the facts and circumstances of this case, it is quite apparent that several and repeated opportunities were given to the petitioner, but he failed to utilise the same, hence there is no procedural lapses on the part of the authority concerned. Furthermore, it is also apparent that the petitioner violated the terms 6 of the agreement and the directions of the authorities concerned and hence the provisions of the aforesaid Rules squarely cover this case and the authorities were quite justified in passing the impugned orders, rather in such cases, the authorities concerned must take a very strict view so that the works allotted are done within the period prescribed and the contractors are stopped from committing such acts. 12. In the aforesaid circumstances, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. MPS/ SUNIL ( S. N. Hussain, J. )