IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1889 of 2010 1. RADHA MOHAN SINGH S/O LATE SITA RAM SINGH R/O MOH- SIR GANESH DATTA NAGAR, ROAD NO. 2, BHAGWANPUR, P.S. SADAR, TOWN & DISTT. MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA, JANPATH, NEW DELHI 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ARCHAEOLOGIST ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA, PATNA CIRCLE, J.C. ROAD, ANTAGHAT, PATNA ----------- 2 04/02/2010 The impugned order under challenge is Annexure-9 dated 9.12.2009. There is categorical finding indicated in the said order that the petitioner has been defaulter in each and every of all the eight supplies which compelled the respondents to forfeit the earnest money as well as the security deposit for non-fulfilment of the contractual obligation. The matter which has been brought on record by the petitioner that a three member committee constituted to go into the larger question of debarment of the petitioner from future contract has not laid all the faults at the door-step of the petitioner. It was in this background that the final order of debarment came to be modified. But from a reading of Annexure-5, the so called three member committee report, the Court is not satisfied that the petitioner was exonerated of - 2 - his wrong doing. It has only recommended that some other kind of punishment may be considered instead of debarment for all times to come. This Committee, therefore, does not absolve the petitioner in any manner in the matter of forfeiture of earnest money and security deposit. Even otherwise, these are factual aspects which need to be thrashed out, may be by moving a petition for arbitration, if so advised. With the materials on record, no interference is required in this writ application. This writ application is, thus, dismissed. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)