SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 4819

PATNA HIGH COURT
M/s R D Entrepreneur
CWJC-19321/2025



##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19321 of 2025

======================================================

M/s R D Entrepreneur

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar & Ors.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Braj Bhushan Poddar, Advocate

For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG-3

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA

ORAL ORDER

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)

2 05-02-2026 Following is the relief sought for in the present writ

application:-

“a) For issuance of a writ in the nature

of certiorari for quashing of the order

communicated vide letter bearing memo no. 729/Aa.

Pr. dated 04.08.2025 issued by the respondent

District Magistrate Gopalganj whereby the

petitioner has been blacklisted for a period of 3

years and the name of the petitioner has been

recommended to the disaster management

department, government of Bihar for debarment of

the petitioner at state level without any prior show

cause notice served upon the petitioner;

b) For further restraining the

respondents from depriving the petitioner or in any

manner affecting the participation of the petitioner

in any of the tenders invited by any Government

department of the state of Bihar and any of the

##PAGE2##

Patna High Court CWJC No.19321 of 2025(2) dt.05-02-2026

2/4

corporation or company etc in light of the impugned

order communicated vide letter bearing memo no.

729/Aa. Pr. dated 04.08.2025 as the same is illegal,

arbitrary and violative of principles of natural

justice;

c) For holding and a declaration that

the impugned office order blacklisting the petitioner

for a period of 3 years from the date of its issuance

suffers from the error of violation of principles of

natural justice for being non-speaking,

disproportionate and mechanical and as such fit to

be quashed and set aside by this honourable court;

d) For grant of any other relief or reliefs

to which the petitioner is found entitled to in the

facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The order under challenge is Kkikad 729@vk0iz0

dated 04.08.2025. From a perusal of the said letter, it appears

that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide letter

no. 634 dated 17.04.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

date of the show-cause notice has been incorrectly mentioned as

17.04.2025 whereas the correct date is 17.07.2025, and the same

is Annexure-P/4 to the present application. It is further

submitted that, in the order under challenge, it has been

erroneously recorded that no reply was submitted by the

petitioner to the said show-cause notice. It has further been

submitted that the petitioner has duly submitted a reply to the

##PAGE3##

Patna High Court CWJC No.19321 of 2025(2) dt.05-02-2026

3/4

show-cause notice, which has been brought on records as

Annexure-P/11, wherein reference was specifically made to

letter i.e. Annexure-P/9. Therefore, observation of the impugned

order regarding non-submission of reply is factually incorrect.

4. It has further been pointed out that the respondent

authority, vide Kki la0% 439@utk0 dated 05.08.2024 had

communicated that certain items supplied by the petitioner were

found to be not up to the mark and, accordingly, directed the

petitioner to make necessary corrections and replacements of

those items. In this regard, it is submitted on behalf of the

petitioner that payments have not been released even for those

items which were found to be satisfactory. As regards the items

alleged to be defective, it is submitted that the same were taken

back by the petitioner, however no specifications or directions

have been issued till date by the respondent authorities enabling

the petitioner to replace the so-called defective items.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed

reliance upon Annexure-P/4, the relevant extract of which is as

follows:-

“vr% S.D.R.F. Vhe ds tkWp esa izfrosnu

d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top