M/s RD Enviro Engineers and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1342 of 2025
======================================================
M/s RD Enviro Engineers and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. having its registered
office at F3- F4, C-30A, Second Floor, Nathu Singh Market, Masoodpur,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110070, through its Director Mr. Subodh Kumar
Dhiman (male), aged about 49 years son of Manfool Singh, resident of 72/9
1st Floor, Kishan Garh Vasant Kunj, Vasant Kunj, S.O, South West Delhi,
Delhi- 110070.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, General Administration
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Regional Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department,
Purnia, Bihar.
3. The Engineer-In-Chief, Public Health Engineering Department, Purnia,
Bihar.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department,
Purnia, Bihar.
5. The Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Araria,
Bihar.
6. The Chief Manager Yes Bank, having its Branch at Ahura Centre Shop No.-
19 And 20 Ground Floor Mahakali Caves Road Andheri East Mumbai
-400093.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Priyajeet Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Kaustubh Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Megha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mrs. Binita Singh, SC-28
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 13-07-2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed
for the following relief(s):-
"(i) For setting aside the Office Order No. 191
dated 18.10.2024 issued by the Office of the
Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering

Patna High Court CWJC No.1342 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
2/17
Department (hereinafter referred to as PHED),
Araria, whereby and where-under the undersigned
cancelled the contracts with the petitioner
pertaining to MBD Nos. 833 & 834 (2019-20), by
which he directed forfeiture of the security deposit
and further proposed to initiate an inquiry at the
Divisional level for blacklisting the petitioner’s
company for a period of five years without serving
any show cause notice whatsoever, contrary to
Rule 11(B) of the Bihar Contractor’s Registration
Rule, 2007; as well as contrary to the general
terms and conditions of the contract which forms
part of the Model Bidding Document (herein after
referred to as MBD).
(ii) For setting aside Letter No. 2292 dated
28.10.2024 whereby and where-under the
Executive Engineer PHED, Araria had
recommended for Blacklisting the petitioner’s
company without serving any show-cause notice
as well as without serving any intimation
whatsoever.
(iii) For directing respondent no. 6 to withhold the
encashment of Bank Guarantee against MBD Nos.
833 & 834 vide FD No. -025340400058923/1
dated 10.02.2020, amounting to Rs. 4,24,300/-
(Four lakhs twenty-four thousand three hundred
rupees only), and FD. No. 025340400058933/1
dated 10.02.2020 amounting Rs. 4,39,020/- (Four
lakhs thirty-nine thousand twenty rupees only)
during pendency of the present writ application

Patna High Court CWJC No.1342 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
3/17
(iv) For any other writ (s), order (s), direction (s),
relief (s) for which the petitioners shall be entitled
to."
3. The brief facts of the case are that the Public Health
Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, issued a Notice
Inviting Tender under the “Har Ghar Nal Ka Jal, Nishchay Yojana”
for procurement of civil works. The petitioner participated in the
tender process and, upon being declared successful, was issued a
Letter of Acceptance dated 04.10.2019.
4. Thereafter, two agreements, namely MBD No. 833
and MBD No. 834, were executed between the petitioner and the
Executive Engineer, PHED, Araria for execution of water supply
works in Ward Nos. 09, 10, 11 and 12, and Ward Nos. 05, 06, 07
and 08 respectively, of Taran Panchayat under Jokihat Block. The
petitioner commenced execution of the works on 12.02.2020.
5. On completion of the execution work, the Executive
Engineer, PHED, Araria, by Letter No. 2170 dated 30.12.2021,
forwarded the petitioner’s claim for release of payment of
Rs.1,54,27,148/- to the Engineer-in-Chief after inspection of the
works.
6. Subsequently, alleging deficiencies in execution and
maintenance of the project, the Executive Engineer issued several

Patna High Court CWJC No.1342 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
4/17
communications to the petitioner. Thereafter, by Office Order No.
191 dated 18.10.2024, the contracts were rescinded and
recommendation was made for initiation of proceedings for
blacklisting of the petitioner for a period of five years.
7. Pursuant thereto, communications were issued for
final measurement of the works, followed by a communication
dated 28.10.2024 to the Superintending Engineer regarding
rescission of the contracts. Thereafter, by letter dated 04.11.2024,
the petitioner’s banker was requested to encash the fixed deposits
furnished by the petitioner towards performance security.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner had completed the execution of the works under both the
agreements and thereafter was carrying out routine maintenance in
terms of the contract. In support thereof, reliance is placed upon
Letter No. 2170 dated 30.12.2021 issued by the Executive
Engineer himself recommending release of payment after
inspection of the completed works.
9. It is further submitted that although several
communications alleging deficiencies were issued by the
Executive Engineer, no effective opportunity was afforded to the
petitioner to respond before passing the impugned order. It is

Patna High Court CWJC No.1342 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
5/17
contended that the contracts were rescinded without issuance of
any show-cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing.
10. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations
regarding non-maintenance are misconceived inasmuch as
repeated representations were made by the petitioner bringing to
the notice of the authorities the recurring electricity fluctuations
affecting operation of the water supply system. However, no
remedial measures were taken by the concerned authorities and the
consequences thereof were wrongly attributed to the petitioner.
11. It is also submitted that despite the petitioner
responding to the communications issued by the department and
assuring rectification of any shortcomings, the respondents
proceeded to rescind the contracts, recommend blacklisting and
invoke the performance security, rendering the impugned action
arbitrary and unsustainable in law.
12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents submits that the petitioner did not complete the entire
work under Agreement Nos. MBD-833/2019-20 and MBD-
834/2019-20. It is contended that Letter No. 2170 dated
30.12.2021 merely sought allotment of funds for the partial work
executed by the petitioner and cannot be construed as a certificate
of completion of the entire project.

Patna High Court CWJC No.1342 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
6/17
13. It is further submitted that against the total
agreement value, the petitioner executed work only to the extent of
the amounts recorded in the measurement books and, despite
receiving payment thereof, failed to execute the remaining work
under both the agreements.
14. Learned counsel submits that since the petitioner
failed to complete the balance work despite repeated
communications, the agreements were rightly rescinded vide
Office Order No. 191 dated 18.10.2024.
15. The limited issue which arises for consideration
before this Court is as to whether the respondents could validly
rescind the agreements on the ground of non-completion of the
work in October, 2024, despite the Executive Engineer having, by
Letter No. 2170 dated 30.12.2021, certified the work executed by
the petitioner and recommended release of payment therefor.
16. Having carefully examined the record, this Court
finds that the issue requires an analysis of the contemporaneous
documents relied upon by both sides, particularly Letter No. 2170
dated 30.12.2021 and the impugned Office Order dated
18.10.2024.
17. Letter No. 2170 dated 30.12.2021, issued by the
Executive Engineer, PHED, Araria, reads as under:
" dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark dk dk;kZy;

Patna High Court CWJC No.1342 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
7/17
yksd LokLF; izeaMy] vjfj;k
i=kad 2170 vjfj;k] fnukad 30@12@2021
izs"kd]
dk;kZikyd vfHk;ark]
yksd LokLF; izeaMy] vjfj;kA
lsok esa]
vfHk;ark izeq[k&lg&fo'ks"k lfpo]
yksd LokLF; vfHk;a=.k foHkkx]
fcgkj] iVukA
fo"k; %& jk"Vªh; xzkeh.k is;ty dk;Zdze vUrxZr ^^gj ?kj uy dk ty^^ ;kstuk
¼xq.koRrk izHkkfor {ks=½ ds rgr~ vf/k;kpuk ds laca/k esaA
izlax %& Lohd`fr;kns'k la[;k i=kad 344 fnukad 25-01-2019] Hkonh; i=kad 496
fnukad 21-05-2021 ,oa i=kad 6ch@t0xq0& 1075@2019&508 fnukad 04-06-
2021
egk'k;]
mi;qZDr izklafxd fo"k;d laca/k esa lknj dguk gS fd jk"Vªh; xzkeh.k
is;ty dk;Zdze vUrxZr ^^gj ?kj uy dk ty^^ ;kstuk ¼xq.koRrk izHkkfor {ks=½
ds rgr vkoaVu gsrq fofgr izi= ds lkFk izfrosnu layXu gSA lkFk gh dguk gS
Satisfactory
fd mDr ,djkjukek ds vUrxZr djk, x, lHkh dk;Z gS ,oa lHkh
;kstuk MIS ij Entered gSA orZeku esa ;kstukvksa ls tykiwfrZ dh tk jgh gSA
vr,o Hkonh; ls vuqjks/k gS fd djk;s x;s dk;Z gsrq rRdky eks0
15427148@& ¼,d djksM+ pkSou yk[k lrkbZl gtkj ,d lkS vM+rkyhl½ :i;s
dk vkoaVu nh tk;A rkfd yafcr ikfjr foi= dk Hkqxrku fd;k tk ldsA
vuq0 %& ;FkksifjA
fo'oklHkktu
g0@&
dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark
yksd LokLF; izeaMy vjfj;kA
"
18. A perusal of the aforesaid communication reveals
that the Executive Engineer sought allotment of Rs.75,07,466/-
under Agreement No. MBD-833/2019-20 and Rs.79,19,682/-
under Agreement No. MBD-834/2019-20, whereas the total
contractual value under the two agreements was approximately Rs.
3.23 crores. Thus, the recommendation was admittedly not for the

Patna High Court CWJC No.1342 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
8/17
entire agreement value but only for the work executed till that
stage. At the same time, the communication does not record that
substantial portions of the work remained incomplete, nor does it
identify the balance work required to be executed or indicate that
the petitioner had committed any breach of the contractual
obligations. On the contrary, the recommendation was made after
inspection of the work executed by the petitioner.
19. The respondents seek to explain the said
communication by contending that it merely pertained to partial
execution of the work and did not amount to a completion
certificate. According to them, the petitioner failed to execute the
remaining work under both the agreements, whereafter the
agreements were rescinded and the balance work was got executed
through another agency.
20. The impugned Office Order dated 18.10.2024
reads as under:
" dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark dk dk;kZy;
yksd LokLF; izeaMy] vjfj;kA
dk;kZy; vkns'k la0 191 vjfj;k] fnukad 18@10@2024
fo"k;%& laosnd esllZ vkj0 Mh0 bUHkkbjks bUthfu;lZ ,.M dULVªD'ku izk0 fy0] F-
4, C30A,
uFkq flag ekdsZV] elqniqj] clar dqWat] U;w fnYyh }kjk yksd LokLF; izeaMy]
vjfj;k vUrxZr iz[kaM tksdhgkV ds iapk;r rkj.k ds okMZ la[;k 05] 06] 07] 08] 09] 10]
11 ,oa 12 vFkkZr dqy 08 vnn okMksZ esa ^^gj ?kj uy dk ty^^ ;kstuk dk fuekZ.k rFkk
05 ¼ikap½ o"kksZa dk ifjpkyu ,oa j[k&j[kko dk dk;Z gsrq ,djkjukek la[;k MBD No.-
833 o"kZ 2019&20 ,oa MBD No.-834 o"kZ 2019&20 }kjk vkoafVr gSA ,djkjukek
vuqlkj dk;Z iw.kZ dh frfFk 11-06-2020 gSA laosnd }kjk dk;Z ds izfr i;kZIr vfHk:ph ugha
j[kus ,oa dk;Z dh izxfr /kheh gksus ds dkj.k rRdkyhu ifjfLFkfr esa dk;kZy; vkns'k
la[;k 10&lg&ifBr Kkikad 19 fnukad 04-01-2021 }kjk Mhckj Hkh fd;k x;k gSA

Patna High Court CWJC No.1342 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
9/17
eq[; vfHk;ark] yksd LokLF; vfHk;a=.k foHkkx] iwf.kZ;kWa iz{ks= iwf.kZ;kWa ds i=kad 507
fnukad 19-03-2021 ds }kjk 31-03-2021 rd le; o`f) izkIr gSA izkIr le; o`f) vuqlkj
fuf'pr :i ls dk;Z iw.kZ fd;k tkuk gSA
vo;ookj dk;Z lEiknu ,oa fu;fer tykiwfrZ cgky djus gsrq bl dk;kZy; dk
i=kad 477 fnukad 17-03-2023] i=kad 654 fnukad 28-03-2023] i=kad 915 fnukad 09-05-
2023] i=kad 1047 fnukad 29-05-2023] i=kad 1092 fnukad 02-06-2023] i=kad 1508
fnukad 25-07-2023] i=kad 1765 fnukad 11-09-2023] i=kad 1872 fnukad 19-09-2023]
i=kad 2006 fnukad 12-10-2023] i=kad 2103 fnukad 31-10-2023] i=kad 184 fnukad 22-
01-2024] i=kad 340 fnukad 29-01-2024] i=kad 821 fnukad 18-03-2024] i=kad 922
fnukad 04-04-2024] i=kad 982 fnukad 13-04-2024] i=kad 988 fnukad 15-04-2024] i=kad
1332 fnukad 24-06-2024] i=kad 1418 fnukad 03-07-2024] i=kad 1459 fnukad 06-07-
2024] i=kad 1504 fnukad 15-07-2024 ,oa i=kad 1766 fnukad 22-08-2024 }kjk vuqjks/k
fd;k x;k] ijUrq vcrd izxfr 'kqU; gS] tks vR;Ur [ksn dk fo"k; gSA fofnr gks fd dk;Z
iw.kZ djus dh vafre frfFk 31-03-2021 rd gh Fkh] tks rhu o"kZ iwoZ gh lekIr gks pqdh gSA
blls Li"V gksrk gS fd laosnd }kjk dk;Z esa vfHk:ph ugha yh tk jgh gSA
mYys[kuh; gS fd i=kad 2006 fnukad 12-12-2023 }kjk 07 ¼lkr½ fnukas ds
vUnj dk;Z iw.kZ djus rFkk ;kstuk esa fo|eku =qfV;ksa dk fujkdj.k dj tykiwfrZ cgky
djus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k rFkk dk;Z izxfr dk la;qDr izxfr izfrosnu miyC/k djkus
gsrq vuqjks/k fd;k x;kA laosnd dks ckj&ckj Lekfjr djus ds ckotwn Hkh tykiwfrZ cgky
ugha djus dh fLFkfr esa i=kad 1662 fnukad 07-08-2024 }kjk ,djkjukek fo[kaMu gsrq
vuq'kalk dh xbZA v/kh{k.k vfHk;ark] yksd LokLF; vfHk;a=.k] iqf.kZ;ka vapy iwf.kZ;ka ds
i=kad 485 fnukad 14-08-2024 }kjk ,djkjukek fo[kaMu djus gsrq fu;ekuqlkj dkjZokbZ
djus dk funs'k fn;k x;kA i=kad 1766 fnukad 22-08-2024 }kjk vafre volj iznku
djrs gq, laosnd dks 24 ?kaVk ds vUnj tykiwfrZ cgky djus gsrq vuqjks/k fd;k x;kA
ijUrq QykQy 'kqU; gSA vr,o bl dk;kZy; dk i=kad 1504 fnukad 15-07-2024 }kjk
of.kZr ifjfLFkfr esa ^^D;ksa ugha vkids ,djkjukek dks fo[kafMr djrs gq, tek tekur dh
jkf'k dks jkT;lkr dj yh tk;^^ ls lacaf/kr Li"Vhdj.k ,d lIrkg ds vUnj miyC/k
djkus gsrq laosnd ls vuqjks/k fd;k x;k] ijUrq mDr Li"Vhdj.k vcrd vizkIr gSA
mijksDr ifjfLFkfr ls Li"V gks tkrk gS fd ,djkjukek ds 'krksZa ds vuqlkj ;kstuk
ds dk;Z dh izxfr dkQh de gS rFkk dk;Z iw.kZ ugha djk;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa ;kstuk ls
fu;fer tykiwfrZ cgky gksuk vlaHko izrhr gksrk gSA ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa lafonk esa fufgr
'krksZa ds vkyksd esa laosnd dk ,djkjukek fo[kf.Mr dj] tekur dh jkf'k jkT;lkr
djus ,oa laosnd dks dkyh lwph esa Mkyus dk ekeyk curk gSA
mi;qZDRk ifjis{; esa lE;d fopkjksijkUr laosnd esllZ vkj0 Mh0 bUHkkbjks
bUthfu;lZ ,.M dULVªD'ku izk0 fy0 F-4, C30A, uFkq flag ekdsZV] elqniqj] clar dqWat]
U;w fnYyh ftudk foHkkx esa fuca/ku la[;k 151120190282 gS] dk ,djkjukek la[;k
MBD No.-833 MBD No.-834
o"kZ 2019&20 ,oa o"kZ 2019&20 dks lafonk dh 'krkZsa
ds Clause-3 ,oa vU; lqlaxr izko/kkuksa ds rgr~ fo[kafMr dj] tekur ds :i esa tek
jkf'k dks jktlkr dj jkT; dks"k esa tek djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k tkrk gSA lkFk gh lkFk
laosnd dks ikWap o"kksZa ds fy, dkyh lwph esa Mkyus gsrq izeaMyh; vuq'kalk mPpf/kdkfj;ksa
dks Hkstus gsrq Hkh fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA ;g vkns'k rRdky izHkko ls ykxq gksxkA
g0@&
dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark
yksd LokLF; izeaMy] vjfj;kA
Kkikad 2195 vjfj;k] fnukad 18@10@2024

Patna High Court CWJC No.1342 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
10/17
izfrfyfi%& laosnd vkj0 Mh0 bUHkkbjks bUthfu;lZ ,.M dULVªD'ku izk0 fy0 F-4,
C30A, uFkq flag ekdsZV] elqniqj] clar dqWat] U;w fnYyh dks lwpukFkZ izsf"krA
g0@&
dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark
yksd LokLF; izeaMy] vjfj;kA "
21. A comparison of the aforesaid two
contemporaneous documents assumes significance. While the
respondents may ultimately be justified in contending that the
communication dated 30.12.2021 related only to the work
executed till that date, the impugned Office Order dated
18.10.2024 neither adverted to nor considered the effect of the
earlier communication issued by the Executive Engineer himself.
The impugned order proceeds on the premise that the petitioner
had failed to complete the work without reconciling the said
conclusion with the departmental record available since
30.12.2021.
22. It is trite that every administrative decision
affecting civil consequences must be informed by fairness, reason
and due application of mind. In Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian
Oil Corporation, reported in (1990) 3 SCC 752 , the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that even in contractual matters, State
instrumentalities are required to act fairly and reasonably. The
relevant part of the said order reads as follows:
“12. It is well settled that every action of the State or
an instrumentality of the State in exercise of its

Patna High Court CWJC No.1342 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
11/17
executive power, must be informed by reason. In
appropriate cases, actions uninformed by reason may
be questioned as arbitrary in proceedings under
Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution. Reliance
in this connection may be placed on the observations
of this Court in Radha Krishna Agarwal v. State of
Bihar. It appears to us, at the outset, that in the facts
and circumstances of the case, the respondent
company IOC is an organ of the State or an
instrumentality of the State as contemplated under
Article 12 of the Constitution. The State acts in its
executive power under Article 298 of the Constitution
in entering or not entering in contracts with
individual parties. Article 14 of the Constitution
would be applicable to those exercises of power.
Therefore, the action of State organ under Article 14
can be checked. See Radha Krishna Agarwal v. State
of Bihar at p. 462, but Article 14 of the Constitution
cannot and has not been construed as a charter for
judicial review of State action after the contract has
been entered into, to call upon the State to account for
its actions in its manifold activities by stating reasons
for such actions. In a situation of this nature certain
activities of the respondent company which
constituted State under Article 12 of the Constitution
may be in certain circumstances subject to Article 14
of the Constitution in entering or not entering into
contracts and must be reasonable and taken only
upon lawful and relevant consideration; it depends
upon facts and circumstances of a particular
transaction whether hearing is necessary and reasons
have to be stated. In case any right conferred on the

Patna High Court CWJC No.1342 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
12/17
citizens which is sought to be interfered, such action
is subject to Article 14 of the Constitution, and must
be reasonable and can be taken only upon lawful and
relevant grounds of public interest. Where there is
arbitrariness in State action of this type of entering or
not entering into contracts, Article 14 springs up and
judicial review strikes such an action down. Every
action of the State executive authority must be subject
to rule of law and must be informed by reason. So,
whatever be the activity of the public authority, in
such monopoly or semi-monopoly dealings, it should
meet the test of Article 14 of the Constitution. If a
governmental action even in the matters of entering or
not entering into contracts, fails to satisfy the test of
reasonableness, the same would be unreasonable. In
this connection reference may be made to E.P.
Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India, Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib
Sehravardi, R.D. Shetty v. International Airport
Authority of India and also Dwarkadas Marfatia and
Sons v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay . It
appears to us that rule of reason and rule against
arbitrariness and discrimination, rules of fair play
and natural justice are part of the rule of law
applicable in situation or action by State
instrumentality in dealing with citizens in a situation
like the present one. Even though the rights of the
citizens are in the nature of contractual rights, the
manner, the method and motive of a decision of
entering or not entering into a contract, are subject to
judicial review on the touchstone of relevance and
reasonableness, fair play, natural justice, equality and

Patna High Court CWJC No.1342 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
13/17
non-discrimination in the type of the transactions and
nature of the dealing as in the present case.”
23. Similarly, in Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v.
Masood Ahmed Khan, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 , it was held
that recording of reasons is an indispensable facet of fairness in
administrative decision-making. The relevant part of the said order
reads as follows:
“ 47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court
holds:
(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to
record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if
such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in
support of its conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to
serve the wider principle of justice that justice must
not only be done it must also appear to be done as
well.
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid
restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial
and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been
exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds
and by disregarding extraneous considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a
component of a decision-making process as observing

Patna High Court CWJC No.1342 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
14/17
principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial
and even by administrative bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by
superior courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries
committed to rule of law and constitutional
governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based
on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of
judicial decision-making justifying the principle that
reason is the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days
can be as different as the judges and authorities who
deliver them. All these decisions serve one common
purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the
relevant factors have been objectively considered.
This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in
the justice delivery system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both
judicial accountability and transparency.
(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not
candid enough about his/her decision-making process
then it is impossible to know whether the person
deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to
principles of incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent,
clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or “rubber-
stamp reasons” is not to be equated with a valid
decision-making process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine
qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers.

Patna High Court CWJC No.1342 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
15/17
Transparency in decision-making not only makes the
judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but
also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See
David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor.)
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates
from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-
making, the said requirement is now virtually a
component of human rights and was considered part
of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain
EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of
Oxford , wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the
European Convention of Human Rights which
requires,
“adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for
judicial decisions”.
(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a
vital role in setting up precedents for the future.
Therefore, for development of law, requirement of
giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is
virtually a part of “due process”.
24. Tested on the aforesaid principles, this Court
finds that the impugned Office Order cannot be sustained. If the
respondents intended to take the view that the petitioner had
executed only a part of the contractual work, it was incumbent
upon the competent authority to consider the contents of Letter No.
2170 dated 30.12.2021, examine its bearing on the issue, and
thereafter record cogent reasons as to why, notwithstanding the

Patna High Court CWJC No.1342 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
16/17
statements made therein, the petitioner was liable to be held
responsible for non-completion of the contractual work. The
impugned order, however, is completely silent in this regard. The
subsequent explanation offered in the counter affidavit that the
communication dated 30.12.2021 related only to partial execution
of the work cannot cure the deficiency in the impugned order
itself.
25. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view
that the decision-making process stands vitiated on account of non-
consideration of a material contemporaneous document forming
part of the respondents’ own record. Therefore, the issue is
answered in favour of the petitioner.
26. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned Office
Order dated 18.10.2024 (Annexure-P/2) is set aside, and
consequently the Letter dated 28.10.2024 (Annexure-P/5) is also
set aside.
27. The matter is remitted to the competent authority
to consider the matter afresh, keeping in view the statements
recorded in Letter No. 2170 dated 30.12.2021 (Annexure- P/3) as
well as all other relevant materials on record, and thereafter pass a
fresh, reasoned order in accordance with law after affording the
petitioner an adequate opportunity of hearing.

Patna High Court CWJC No.1342 of 2025 dt.13-07-2026
17/17
28. This Court has expressed no opinion on the
merits of the rival claims regarding the actual extent of work
executed by the petitioner, and all questions are left open for
consideration by the competent authority.
29. Accordingly, the present writ application stands
allowed in terms of the observations and directions made
hereinabove.
30. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, ACJ)
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J.)
Gaurav Kumar/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 21.07.2026
Transmission Date NA