IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18039 of 2009 ***** 1. M/S Royal Engineer's, Registered Office at Akharghat, Najirpur, P.S. Ahiyapur, District- Muzaffarpur, through its proprietor Sri Chandra Kishore Shahi, Son of Sri Ram Sakal Shahi. 2. Sri Chandar Kishore Shahi, Son of Sri Ram Sakal Shahi Proprietor of M/S Royal Engineer's, Registered Office at Akharghat, Najirpur, P.S. Ahiyapur, District-Muzaffarpur. …. …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Chief Engineer (Head Quarter), Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer (Head Quarter), Rural Works Department, Hajipur at Vaishali. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Darbhanga Circle, District- Darbhanga. 6. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Division, Benipatti, District- Madhubani …. …. Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha, Standing Counsel-XVIII Mr. Baidya Nath Thakur, Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel-XVIII ----------- 2. 21.12.2009. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, the Court opines that the matter may be disposed of at the admission stage itself looking at the limited question and adjudication which is required in the matter. It is not in dispute that vide notification dated 29.10.2009 a large number of contractors, numbering 397, were notified to have incurred disqualification due to non-completion of earlier projects and works by them. Petitioner’s name also figured in the said list at Sl. No.326. It seems that petitioner has been approaching the respondent authorities to consider the matter afresh in light of impediment in the way - 2 - of completion of the work in question. Submission of the petitioner is that more than almost 90% work had been completed but due to a naxalite attack some work could not be executed within the time frame, evidence of which has been brought on record by the petitioner in the writ application itself. Vide notification dated 11.12.2009 (Annexure-10) petitioner’s name was delisted from the notification dated 29.10.2009. This has been done after due consideration and the recommendations made by the concerned authorities but by the time this notification came to be issued by the respondents the petitioner had already suffered by rejection of his technical bid on 8.12.2009 because of the petitioner’s name figuring in the notification dated 29.10.2009. In other words, despite a decision taken by the respondents the petitioner has suffered at the hands of the respondents. His contention is that Annexure-10 should be read in such a manner as if the disqualification earned by him vide notification dated 29.10.2009 does not exist. The notification does not indicate that delisting of the petitioner would relate to the date of the order. If that is so then for all practical purposes the petitioner was never disqualified. Learned counsel for the State does not deny the existence of Annexure-10 but his submission is that since the order came to be issued on 11.12.2009 and the technical bid was opened on 8.12.2009, obviously, as things stand then, then the decision of the rejection was the natural corollary. That could be the practical side or the stand of the - 3 - respondents but then if the respondent authorities have categorically held that reasons are available for taking the petitioner off the disqualification then the petitioner’s case must relate back to the date when he was notified or brought into the disqualification list on 29.10.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs the Court that the financial bid of the parties have not been opened and decided till date. Learned counsel for the State has no inputs on this. If the financial bid have not been opened or decided till today then the respondents would be obliged to consider the technical bid of the petitioner, if he does not suffer any other disqualification except the fact that his name figured in the disqualification list dated 29.10.2009 contained in Annexure-3. The writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated above. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)