Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner was under an agreement to construct a high level bridge project over the Barakar river in Barbendiya village on Nirsa-Jamtara Road under Nirsa Block vide Agreement No. 03/2007-08 dated 30.01.2008 awarded by Rural development Special Division. The work awarded on turnkey basis was to be completed within a period of 30 months i.e. June, 2010 from the date of work order dated 30.01.2008. Value of work was Rs. 36,87,000,00/- (Thirty Six Crores and Eighty Seven Lakhs). Agreement is at Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Bridge in question consists of 56 Piers, 57 Slabs and 2 Abutments. Petitioner had constructed 56 Piers. 5 Piers got washed away on 18.08.2009, which petitioner attributes to heavy release of water from nearby Maithan Dam due to unprecedented rain for last 5 days in the rainy season.

3. Petitioner was asked to stop the work on 04.09.2009 by the Executive Engineer under instruction from the superior officers of the Department. Petitioner made representation showing its readiness and willing to complete the bridge as per agreement within the stipulated time of completion and without any further claim of cost. A committee comprising of Chief Engineer, Rural Development Special Zone, Ranchi, Superintending Engineer, Rural Development Special Circle, Ranchi and Executive Engineer, Rural Development Department, Special Division, Ranchi inspected the site on 23.08.2009 pursuant to the direction of the Secretary, Rural Development Department. As per report at Annexure-5, it opined that the incident was a result of failure of foundation as piers were not embedded on hard rock. Prima facie it showed act of negligence and fraud on the part of the contractor. Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer were also found responsible in dereliction of duty in not ensuring their presence at the time of pilling of piers as per the specification and embedding on hard rock. It suggested proper scientific investigation by reputed Technical Institutions like BIT, Meshra, IIT, Roorkee, etc. so that no further accident takes place. It further suggested that ultra sonography of all piers be conducted for which services of AMIL Ltd. New Delhi, can be taken. It also suggested completion of work at the cost of contractor.

4. Petitioner was debarred on the basis of that report vide letter dated 09.09.2010 bearing no. 6533, Annexure-10 issued by the Rural Development Department. It alleged that for the damage caused to the under construction project, an FIR has also been instituted against the contractor. This order of debarment was challenged by the petitioner in W. P. (C) No. 7836 of 2011, which after consideration of the stand of the rival parties, was decided vide order dated 19.09.2014 directing the petitioner to approach the respondent no. 1, Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand by way of a detailed representation. Learned Single Judge took into account the submission of the petitioner that the order of debarment had continued for four years and was causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. It could not be continued for an indefinite period as it violates Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned Single Judge, however, found himself unable to interfere with the impugned orders dated 09.09.2010 and 11.07.2012, (the latter order was passed during pendency of the writ petition after giving due opportunity to the petitioner i.e. at Annexure-13 to the present writ application). Petitioner on being dissatisfied had approached learned Division Bench in LPA No. 447 of 2014, which was decided on 21.05.2015 in the following terms:-

“In case the appellant-writ petitioner submits a detailed representation in this regard before respondent No. 1 within two weeks' time from today, he shall accord consideration to the same and pass a detailed order within two months thereafter, undoubtedly, keeping in consideration the observation made by their Lorships in case of M/s Kulja Industries Lim