Sindhuja Engineer and Contractor vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1422 of 2026
======================================================
Sindhuja Engineer and Contractor having its Principal Place of Business at
village Mow, P.S. Tekari, District Gaya, Bihar through its Authorized
Signatory, Sushil Kumar, aged about 53 years, Male, Son of Jitendra Sharma
Resident of Flat No. 201, 2nd floor, Yamuna Block 6 Sector D6 Vasant Kunj,
P.S. Vasant Kunj, District South West Delhi, Delhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Public Health and
Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Engineer in Chief, Public Health and Engineering Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer (Urban) cum Registering Authority, Public Health and
Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Banka, District Banka,
Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Shubham Prakash, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Yogendra Pd. Sinha, AAG 7
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
Date : 18-04-2026
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of
the Office Order No. 06 dated 09.01.2026 as contained in Memo
No.105 dated 09.01.2026, in connection with Agreement No.
158/2019-20, whereby and whereunder the Executive Engineer,
Public Health Division, Banka, i.e . the respondent No.4 has

Patna High Court CWJC No.1422 of 2026 dt.18-04-2026
2/7
debarred the petitioner firm. The petitioner has also prayed for
quashing of the letter dated 14.01.2026, issued by the
respondent No.4 whereby the petitioner has been directed to
make payment of the electricity bills within 24 hours, failing
which process shall be initiated for debarment/rescindment of
the contract.
2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner are that
the petitioner is a registered Class I contractor under the
provisions of the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules, 2007’). The petitioner was
granted certificate of registration dated 26.08.2020, as a
Contractor of Public Health Engineering Department by the
Chief Engineer (Urban), Public Health Engineering Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna, i.e . the respondent No.3 for a
period of five years. The petitioner is stated to have participated
in a tender process relating to Mukhya Mantri Peyjal Nischay
Yojana for the District of Banka relating to the work of
management of safe and pure drinking water for the areas which
were affected by High Floride content in the water by
establishing / construction of Floride Removal / Treatment Unit
along with five years operation and maintenance. The said
tender was awarded to the petitioner, leading to execution of an

Patna High Court CWJC No.1422 of 2026 dt.18-04-2026
3/7
Agreement bearing No. 158/2019-20 in between the petitioner
and the respondent No.4 as also issuance of work order on
26.12.2025. The petitioner is stated to have completed the work.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that subsequently the
respondent No.4, vide Office Order dated 17.12.2025 had
directed the petitioner to pay the up to date electricity bills by
means of receipt failing which it was contemplated that the bills
would be paid from the amount payable to the petitioner from
the concerned work division and further action for
debarment/blacklisting/ rescindment of agreement etc. shall be
taken in terms of the agreement and in accordance with law.
Thereafter, the respondent No.4 has issued the impugned Office
Order dated 09.01.2026, debarring the petitioner indefinitely.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
debarment cannot be for an indefinite period in view of the law
laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Khulja
Industries Limited vs. Chief General Manager, Western
Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others ,
reported in (2014) 14 SCC 731, paragraph No.25 whereof is
reproduced in herein below:
“25. Suffice it to say that “debarment” is recognised and
often used as an effective method for disciplining deviant

Patna High Court CWJC No.1422 of 2026 dt.18-04-2026
4/7
suppliers/contractors who may have committed acts of
omission and commission or frauds including
misrepresentations, falsification of records and other
breaches of the regulations under which such contracts
were allotted. What is notable is that the “debarment” is
never permanent and the period of debarment would
invariably depend upon the nature of the offence
committed by the erring contractor.”
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that
the impugned order dated 09.01.2026 has been issued by an
incompetent authority inasmuch as the respondent No.4 is not
the authority who had registered the firm of the petitioner. It is
thus submitted that only the respondent No.3 could have either
issued the show cause notice to the petitioner or the order of
debarment/ blacklisting qua the petitioner. In this regard,
reference has been made to Rule 11 (d) of the Rules, 2007,
which is reproduced herein below:-
“(d) The order of blacklisting/suspension shall be passed
by the officer who is competent to register the contractor
or by the officer under whom the registering officer
works. ”
Thus, it is submitted that since the respondent No.3 i.e .
the Chief Engineer (Urban)-cum-Registering Authority, Public
Health and Engineering Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna is the registering authority of the firm of the petitioner, he

Patna High Court CWJC No.1422 of 2026 dt.18-04-2026
5/7
was only authorized to either issue show cause notice to the
petitioner or pass any order of debarment/blacklisting.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-State has
submitted that the respondent No.4 had issued show cause
notices dated 06.11.2025, 19.11.2025 and 17.12.2025, apart
from other notices before passing the impugned order dated
09.01.2026, hence the principles of natural justice have been
complied with before passing of the impugned order dated
09.01.2026. Nonetheless, the learned counsel for the
respondent-State has not been able to show from the records or
from the Rules, 2007 that the respondent No.4 is the competent
authority to either issue show cause notice to the petitioner,
prior to passing of the order for debarment/ blacklisting or pass
an order of debarment/ blacklisting itself.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the materials on record. We find from the records that
the show cause notices as also the order of debarment of the pe-
titioner firm have been issued by the respondent No.4, who is
not the registering authority in the present case inasmuch as a
bare perusal of the certificate of registration, annexed as Annex-
ure P/1 to the present writ petition would show that the register-
ing authority is the respondent No.3, i.e . the Chief Engineer (Ur-

Patna High Court CWJC No.1422 of 2026 dt.18-04-2026
6/7
ban)-cum-Registering Authority, Public Health and Engineering
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, hence it is only the re-
spondent No.3 who is/was authorized to issue show cause notice
for debarment/ blacklisting as also pass an order of debarment/
blacklisting. Thus, a debarment or blacklisting order passed
without a valid show cause notice is not only invalid but also vi-
olates the principles of natural justice, hence is liable to be
quashed on this ground alone.
8. We further find that it is a well settled law that an order of
debarment/blacklisting passed for an indefinite period is legally
unsustainable, as it violates the principles of natural justice, the
doctrine of proportionality, and the fundamental right to carry
on trade. In the present case, by the impugned order dated
09.01.2026, the petitioner firm has been debarred for an
indefinite period. The law in this regard is no longer res integra
inasmuch as the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Khulja
Industries Limited ( supra ) has held that debarment can never be
permanent. Thus, on this score as well the impugned order dated
09.01.2026 is unsustainable in the eyes of law.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
for the foregoing reasons, we deem it fit and proper to quash the
impugned Office Order dated 09.01.2026 and remand the matter

Patna High Court CWJC No.1422 of 2026 dt.18-04-2026
7/7
back to the respondent No.3 who shall issue fresh show cause
notice to the petitioner and after inviting his objections shall
pass a reasoned and a speaking order, in accordance with law
and the agreement entered into between the parties.
10. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
( Arun Kumar Jha, J)
GAURAV S./-