Failure to consider material contemporaneous evidence in departmental records vitiates the administrative decision-making process.

The Petitioner was awarded two contracts (MBD Nos. 833 834) in 2019 for water supply works under the "Har Ghar Nal Ka Jal" scheme in Araria, Bihar

On 30.12.2021, the Executive Engineer (Respondent No. 5) issued Letter No. 2170, stating that the works executed were "satisfactory" and recommending a payment of approx. ₹1.54 crores

However, on 18.10.2024, the department issued Office Order No. 191, rescinding the contracts, forfeiting security deposits, and recommending blacklisting for five years, alleging non-completion and deficiencies

The Petitioner challenged these orders, contending they were passed without a show-cause notice and ignored the department's own prior certification of the work

Whether the respondents could validly rescind the agreements on the ground of non-completion in 2024 despite a prior departmental recommendation in 2021 certifying the work as satisfactory

The Court applied the doctrine of administrative fairness and the requirement for reasoned decisions under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

State actions in contractual matters must be informed by reason and relevant considerations (Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corporation, 1990).

Recording cogent reasons is an indispensable facet of natural justice and a safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power (Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, 2010).

The Court found a stark contradiction between the Executive Engineer’s 2021 letter, which praised the work as "satisfactory", and the 2024 impugned order, which alleged "zero progress".

The Court reasoned that while the State argued the 2021 letter only concerned "partial" work, the impugned order of 2024 failed to even mention or reconcile this earlier contemporaneous document.

The decision-making process was held to be vitiated because the competent authority ignored material evidence existing on its own record.

The Court emphasized that an administrative order affecting civil rights must be "informed by reason," and the silence of the 2024 order regarding the 2021 certification rendered the action arbitrary.

The Court set aside the Office Order dated 18.10.2024 and the recommendation letter dated 28.10.2024, remitting the matter to the competent authority to pass a fresh, reasoned order after considering Letter No. 2170 dated 30.12.2021 and providing the Petitioner an opportunity for a hearing.

The writ petition was allowed.