RAJAN GUPTA, J.:–The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter dated 04.03.2022, by which, the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, District Gaya, Bihar i.e. the respondent no. 4 has debarred the petitioner from participating in future contracts.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that the petitioner is Class-I Contractor and is engaged in construction and civil works, as such, in pursuance to notice inviting Re-tender no. 01/2019-20, issued by the Minor Irrigation Division, Gaya, the petitioner had participated in the bid process, whereupon he was declared successful and was issued work allotment letter dated 24.09.2020 with a direction to proceed with the work forthwith. However, vide Office Order dated 05.10.2020, the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Patna had cancelled the Work Allotment Letter dated 24.09.2020 in terms of Clause 44 of the Tender Conditions after receipt of certain complaints but subsequently, it was found that the allegations levelled against the petitioner were misconceived, thus the said Chief Engineer, vide Office Order dated 11.12.2020 cancelled the earlier Office Order dated 05.10.2020 and directed for restoration of the work allotted to the petitioner forthwith. It is the case of the petitioner that though the work was required to be completed by 24.06.2021 but the same could not be completed on account of reasons beyond the control of the petitioner, hence, a letter was issued by the Executive Engineer dated 04.12.2021 to the petitioner to complete the work forthwith, failing which, appropriate action in terms of the Standard Bidding Document would be taken. Again, the concerned Executive Engineer, vide letter dated 05.03.2022, directed the petitioner to expedite the work and complete the same within one month, failing which, appropriate action under Standard Bidding Document and Blacklisting would be recommended. It is also submitted that without issuing any show cause notice, contemplating an action for debarment of the petitioner, the respondent no. 4, by the impugned order dated 04.03.2022, debarred the petitioner from participating in future contracts, till completion of the work allotted to him.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since no notice has been issued to the petitioner to put forth his defense prior to passing of the impugned order of debarment dated 04.03.2022, the same is illegal and liable to be quashed. It is also submitted that the order of debarment can only be issued by the Engineer-in-Chief of the department concerned, however, in the present case, the order of debarment has been issued by the Executive Engineer which is also illegal, hence, the impugned order dated 04.03.2022 is fit to be set aside on this ground as well.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted, by referring to the counter affidavit filed in the present case, that after adhering to the due process of tender/ selection etc., the work of Extensive Renovation of Nagma Oraina Aahar Payne Irrigation System was allotted to the petitioner and an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 on 25.09.2020, wheereafter the work order was issued on the same day and the work was required to be completed by 24.06.2021. It is the allegation of the respondent-State that upon various inspections made by the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Gaya in the month of March and May, 2021, it was found that the work was not being carried out properly by the petitioner, as such, the respondent no. 4 had issued certain directions to the petitioner vide letters dated 04.06.2021, 03.08.2021 and 21.10.2021 to complete the work in question but to no avail.

5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that despite repeated directions, the petitioner could execute only 50% of the total work till the month of November, 2021, as such, the respondent