Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

In this case, a construction company (petitioner) challenged an order issued by the Executive Engineer of the Building Construction Department, Madhepura, Bihar, on 26 February 2022. The order indefinitely debarred the company from ongoing and future work. The petitioner argued that this action was taken without proper jurisdiction and without giving due consideration to its reply to an earlier show-cause notice.

The background is that the petitioner had entered into a contract with the Executive Engineer on 16 June 2020 for constructing multiple facilities—administrative and workshop buildings, a staff hostel, canteen, residences for principal and vice-principal, boundary wall, approach road, furniture, and related fire safety and electrical works—at the ITI campus in Madhepura.

The contract stipulated a completion date of 23 October 2021. However, the petitioner claimed the work could not be completed on time due to unavoidable circumstances, specifically:

• The site was initially encroached upon by local residents, and possession was handed over only on 10 May 2020 during a COVID-19 lockdown.
• Soon after, the area suffered severe flooding due to heavy rainfall, further delaying work.
  The petitioner argued these were “Force Majeure” events—circumstances beyond its control—and had informed the authorities accordingly.

When delays persisted, the Executive Engineer issued a show-cause notice asking for reasons for the slow progress. The petitioner replied on 25 January 2022, explaining the delays. Despite this, the Executive Engineer passed the debarment order on 26 February 2022, stating that the work was not completed by the stipulated date and directing the petitioner to finish the pending work urgently.

In court, the petitioner contended that:

1. The Executive Engineer lacked jurisdiction to pass the debarment order; only the Chief Engineer had such powers under Rule 11(c) of the Bihar Contractor Registration Rules, 2007.
2. The order was passed without properly considering the reply to the show-cause notice.

The State, however, argued that:

• Since the agreement was executed between the petitioner and the Executive Engineer, the latter was competent to take action regarding debarment (although blacklisting required the Chief Engineer’s approval).
• The petitioner failed to produce key documents like the contract copy and the office letter dated 22 November 2021, indicating a lack of clean disclosure.
• The claim of not receiving the show-cause notice was unsupported by evidence.

The Patna High Court observed that:

• The petitioner and Executive Engineer had entered into an agreement, so the Executive Engineer was competent to issue a debarment order in relation to that contract.
• For blacklisting purposes, the Chief Engineer is indeed the competent authority, but here the action was only “debarment,” not formal blacklisting.
• The petitioner failed to approach the court with full facts, as it withheld crucial documents and did not substantiate the claim of not receiving the notice.

On these grounds, the Court dismissed the petition, noting that the petitioner had not come with “clean hands.” At the end, the petitioner’s counsel sought to withdraw the case, which was allowed, with liberty to seek other remedies available under law.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This judgment highlights two important aspects for contractors working on government projects:

1. Jurisdiction in Disciplinary Actions – The competent authority to act against a contractor depends on the nature of the action and the level at which the contract was executed. For debarment related to a specific contract, the authority who signed the contract can act; for blacklisting, only the registering authority can decide.
2. Full Disclosure to the Court – Petitioners must present all relevant documents and facts when challenging government actions. Courts are reluctant to grant relief if there is any indication of withholding material information.

For government departments, this judgment reaffirms that they can act firmly against contractors for delays, provided due process is followed and jurisdictional boundaries are respected.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with Reasoning

• Whether the Executive Engineer had jurisdiction to debar the contractor.
  ✔ Court held that since the contract was signed between the petitioner and the Executive Engineer, the Executive Engineer had jurisdiction to debar for that specific work. Blacklisting, however, requires Chief Engineer’s authority under Rule 11(c) of Bihar Contractor Registration Rules, 2007.
• Whether the petitioner was denied natural justice by not receiving the show-cause notice.
  ✘ Court found no credible evidence that the petitioner did not receive the notice.
• Whether the writ petition should be entertained despite incomplete disclosure.
  ✘ Court dismissed the petition because the petitioner did not produce key documents and therefore approached the court without “clean hands.”

Judgments Referred by Parties

• Universal Interior Decorator v. State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 3683 of 2019, decided on 19.11.2019.

Case Title
Indra Narain Singh Contractors Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors.

Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7847 of 2022

Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
For the Petitioner: Mr. Aditya Prakash Sahay, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha (SC26), Advocate; Mr. Subodh Kumar, AC to SC26

Link to Judgment
https://www.patnahighcourt.gov.in/ShowPdf/web/viewer.html?file=../../TEMP/e7ef3230-7aaf-4e12-ae6f-13f35a1d672d.pdf&search=Debarment

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.