IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3278 of 2026 ======================================================

M/S R.S. Construction ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation & Ors.

... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aditya Narain Singh, Advocate Mr. Kundan Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prasoon Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Advocate ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)

2 13-03-2026 Following is the relief sought for in the present writ application:-

“1. That this is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 27.11.2025 bearing Letter No. 4504, issued under the signature of the Chief Engineer Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation, Patna as well as for quashing of the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 19.1.2024 only to the following extent:- “es0vkj0,l0dalVªD”ku dks SBD ds Section 1. Instruction to Bidders (ITB) ds Clause-33 ds rgr rRdkfyd izHkkj ls 03 o’kZ ds fy;s fcgkj iqfyl Hkou fuekZ.k fuxe ,oa fdlh Hkh vU; dk;Z foHkkx@fuxe@izkf/kdkj@vfHkdj.k@ lLa Fkk dh fufonk esa Hkkx ysus ls v;ksX; ?kksf’kr fd;k tkrk gSA ” because incertion of word from the immediate effect has changed the date of earlier of punishment which is to be effected from 21.7.2022.”

2. It may be pointed out that this is the second round of litigation. In the first round of litigation, the Writ Court while deciding the issue, had affirmed the order of the Appellate Authority vide order dated 27.02.2025, whereby the Department had blacklisted the petitioner firm for a period of 5 years. Subsequently, the Appellate Authority reduced the said period from 5 years to 3 years. The said order was affirmed by the Writ Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13715 of 2024 vide order dated 27.02.2025. Against the said order, the petitioner firm preferred an S.L.P., which also came to be dismissed vide order dated

17.12.2025.

3. So far as the present writ application is concerned, a very limited question has been raised by the petitioner, namely, M/s R.S. Construction that the period of 3 years of blacklisting, as determined by the Appellate Authority, ought to be counted from 21.07.2022 in pursuance of Annexure-P/4, which is the corrigendum issued by the respondent-State vide H.Q. 2285 dated 03.07.2023. However, according to the respondents, the said period of 3 years is to be counted from the date of the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 19.11.2024, which has been brought on record as Annexure-P/2.

The extract of the same is as follows:-”

“18. vr% bZ&fufonk lwpuk l0a &05/SBD/2022-23 ds dze l0a &25&x;k ftykUrxZr ljognk vks0ih0 esa Fkkuk Hkou] vkmV gkml dk fo|qfrdj.k lfgr fuekZ.k dk;Z ds fy;s vkijkf/kd ‘kM;=a ,oa tkylkth dj] tkyh vuqHko izek.k i= rS;kj dj ,oa mDr tkyh vuqHko izek.k i= lefiZr dj] Ny iwoZd fcgkj iqfyl Hkou fuekZ.k fuxe ls dk;Z vkofaVr djkus rFkk xyr xa ls ykHk izkIr djus ds iz;kl ds fy;s es0 vkj0 ,l0 daLVªD”ku dks SBD ds Section 1: Instruction to Bidders (ITB) ds Clause 33 ds rgr] rRdkfyd izHkkj ls 03 o’kZ ds fy;s] fcgkj iqfyl Hkou fuekZ.k fuxe ,oa fdlh Hkh vU; dk;Z foHkkx@fuxe@izkf/kdkj@vfHkdj.k@lLa Fkk dh fufonk esa Hkkx ysus ls v;ksX; ?kksf’kr fd;k tkrk gSA fuc/a ku inkf/kdkjh dk dk;kZy; vkn”s k&226@2023 fnukad&22-06-2023 rFkk Kkikda &,p0D;0w 2285 fnukad&03-07-2023 rnuqlkj l”a kksf/kr le>k tk;sxkA vihykFkhZ }kjk nk;j vihy vH;kosnu dks vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gAS ”

4. The Appellate Authority, while reducing the period from 5 years to 3 years had indicated the word ‘rRdkfyu iHz kkj’. The question that arises for consideration is whether the expression ‘rRdkfyu izHkkj’ can be read as ‘rRdkfyu izHkko’. 5. Further, the Writ Court, while dealing with the issue of blacklisting of the p