JUDGMENT

1. The matter has been taken up for hearing on-line because of COVID-19 Pandemic restrictions.

2. Seeking exception to an order issued vide Memo. No. 1112 dated 06.05.2020 under the signature of Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar (Respondent No. 3), whereby the petitioner has been black-listed, invoking Rule 11(ka)(ii) of the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007, for ten years, the petitioner has filed this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956.

3. The impugned order has been brought on record by way of Annexure-P/7 of the writ application from which it is evident that the same has been issued on the charge of failure on the part of the petitioner to complete its work under Agreement No. 02 SBD/201415 dated 26.02.2015 (Group No. 9) for Restoration of Hathua Branch Canal (90.00 To 183.00 RD) and its Distribution System Guthani Distributory and its Distribution System Titra Sub Distributory and its Distribution System Under "RESTORATION Work of Western Gandak Canal System Bihar" (SARAN Main Canal and its Distribution System, Bihar (New Major ERM)". The work was to be executed under the supervisory jurisdiction of the Chief Engineer, Sinchai Srijan, Siwan, Saran Canal Division, Mairwa.

4. Counter affidavit, supplementary counter affidavit and reply have been filed on behalf of the parties, which are there on record. Pleadings are thus complete.

5. Heard Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned S.C.-11 for the State of Bihar.

6. Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has taken this Court to various factual aspects as pleaded in the writ application and other pleadings on record in order to make out the case that the impugned action of black-listing the petitioner suffers from the vice of malice in law apart from the same being non-speaking, having been issued in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

7. The gist of the allegation of the department for taking the action of black-listing against the petitioner is failure on its part to execute the work in terms of the agreement in question.

8. It is the petitioner's case on the other hand that failure on the part of the State respondents to make available the land free from all encroachments for the purpose of execution of work had been the main reason why the work could not pick-up the desired pace. It is also the petitioner's case that the State respondents failed to remove from the land other fixtures like electric poles etc., which were apparently causing obstruction in execution of work.

9. Mr. Singh, learned Senior Counsel has relied on a Supreme Court's decision in case of UMC Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Food Corpn. of India, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 551 to contend that the impugned order is in utter breach of principles of natural justice inasmuch as neither the show cause notice issued to the petitioner can be said to be adequate nor the impugned order, speaking, disclosing any application of mind on the petitioner's explanation submitted in response to the said show cause notice. He has submitted that if the submission to the effect that the impugned order is in breach of principles of natural justice finds favour with this Court and this Court deems it fit and proper to interfere with the impugned order, no direction may be issued to the respondents to pass an order afresh. In support of his submission, he has relied on Supreme Court's decision in case of Thakur Birendra Singh v. State of M.R, reported in (1969) 3 SCC 489.

10. Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned S.C.-11 has argued that the impugned order does not require any interference for the reason that before passing of the impugned order, the petitioner was given an opportunity to show cause for the failure on its part to perform the work awarded to it in terms of the a