ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)

Date : 20-03-2023 In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) for quashing letter no. 596 dated

22.5.2014 issued by respondent no. 6 whereby respondent no. 3 has been informed that action is being taken for recovery from petitioner and further recommendation has been made for black listing the registration of the petitioner, (ii) for quashing letter no. 1355 dated

11.10.2014 issued under the signature of Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Sheikhpura, whereby petitioner has been directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 10,91,762.00 after adjusting the security money and other amount against the agreement for construction of To-3 Shivsona to Halsi Road being agreement no. 04(PMGSY)/2009-2010 Package No. BR-

19R-061.

(iii) for payment of all the due amount for the work done by the petitioner with respect to construction of Shivsona to Halsi Road being agreement no. 04 (PMGSY)/2009-2010 Package No. BR-19R- 061 according to Measurement Book with appropriate interest.

(iv) for direction to the respondents to execute fresh agreement with enhanced rate in favour of the petitioner and permit the petitioner to complete the work according to enhanced estimate for which modified technical sanction was accorded on 20-04-

2013.

(v) for any other relief / reliefs for which the petitioner is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. During pendency of the present petition, petitioner has filed an interlocutory application while assailing the blacklisting order dated 31.03.2015. The petitioner is a contractor and had executed agreement on 30.10.2009 for a period of five years insofar as execution of construction and maintenance of (TO3) Shivsona Village to Halsi Road under PMGSY ( Package no. BR-19R-061).

3. In not executing the awarded work on time the official respondent proceeded to take action for recovery of certain amount and adjustment of EMD vide communication dated 22.05.2014 item no. 4 in Annexure-5 is in relation to the petitioner. Further in Annexure-5 there is a proposal for blacklisting the petitioner and blacklisting was ordered on

31.03.2015.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned action of recovery and blacklisting are not speaking decisions. It is further submitted that there is no reference to issuance of show-cause notice and consideration of the petitioner’s reply insofar as both the actions of the recovery and blacklisting, therefore, they are liable to be set aside.

5. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent resisted the aforesaid contentions and submitted that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court thereafter, invoked remedy before the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal and Arbitration Tribunal which refused to entertain Reference Case No. 153 of 2015, hence once again the petitioner has approached this Court. There is a delay in filing the writ petition and it is also submitted that by means of Interlocutory Application blacklisting order has been challenged. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that all the formalities have been completed before impugned action of recovery and blacklisting like issuance of show-cause notice on more than one occasion and further paper notification was also undertaken by the official respondent while issuing notice to the petitioner, therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned action of recovery and blacklisting. It is also submitted that on 12.02.2014 contract was terminated vide Annexure-B to the conter-affidavit and it has not been challenged.

6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

7. It is necessary to reproduce Annexure-5 dated

22.05.2014 which reads as under:-

And it is also necessary to reproduce blacklisting order dated 31.03.2015 which reads as under:-

8. Perusal of the aforesaid decisions, it is crystal clear that there is no iota of reference to show-cause notice and repl