ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has sought the following reliefs in the present writ application:

“I. For issuance of direction/directions or order/orders, or writ/writs in the nature of mandamus for quashing of order of Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Supaul (Respondent no. 6) who vide his official order no. 4 dated 7.1.2021 has debarred the petitioner from taking part in coming contract till further order as well as quashing of order dated 5.3.2024 passed by Principal Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Bihar by which the appeal of the petitioner against order no. 4 memo no. 61 dated 7.1.2021 passed by Executive Engineer Division, Supaul has been rejected.

II. For any other relief/reliefs to which the petitioner is found legally entitled.”

3. The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner’s agency, registered under the Public Health Engineering Department (Registration No. 1646 of 2019), was awarded work under Agreement Nos. 169 MBD/2019-20 and 170 MBD/2019-20 dated 16.10.2019, which were to be completed within a period of six months. Owing to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner sought extension of time for completion of the work, which was granted by the Chief Engineer vide Memo No. 67 dated 12.01.2021, extending time up to 31.01.2021. The petitioner completed the work within the extended period on 19.01.2021 and 25.01.2021, as evidenced by completion reports.

4. During the subsistence of the extended period, the petitioner’s agency was debarred by the Executive Engineer, P.H.D., Supaul vide Order No. 4 dated 07.01.2021. Subsequently, upon coming to know about the debarment, the petitioner submitted an application dated 19.01.2024 seeking revocation of the same. Pursuant thereto, the Executive Engineer vide Letter No. 537 dated 22.01.2024, the Superintending Engineer vide Letter No. 59 dated 23.01.2024, and the Chief Engineer, Purnea Region vide Letter No. 71 dated 31.01.2024, all recommended removal of the debarment noting completion of work. A satisfaction certificate was also issued on 09.02.2024.

5. However, the petitioner’s appeal for removal of debarment was rejected by Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 05.03.2024, leading to the present writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of debarment dated 07.01.2021 has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was ever afforded to the petitioner. Further, the said order was issued even before expiry of the extended time for completion of work, and despite this, the petitioner duly completed the work within the extended period on 19.01.2021 and 25.01.2021, which stands duly certified by the department.

7. It is further submitted that after completion of work, all competent authorities, including the Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer, and Chief Engineer recommended removal of the debarment, and a satisfaction certificate dated 09.02.2024 was also issued. However, Respondent No. 2, without considering these material facts and recommendations, arbitrarily rejected the petitioner’s appeal vide order dated 05.03.2024, rendering the impugned action illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order of debarment dated 07.01.2021 was passed in accordance with the terms of the contract due to delay and unsatisfactory performance on the part of the petitioner. Timely execution of public works being essential, the department was well within its power to take such action.

9. The following issues arise for consideration in the present writ application:

1. Whether the order of debarment dated 07.01.2021 is premature and unsustainable in law, having been passed during the subsistence of the extended period for completion of work (extended till 31.01.2021 vide M