Patna High Court
M/S Raj Construction vs The State Of Bihar on 19 December, 2024
Bench: Chief Justice, Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18082 of 2024
======================================================
M/s Raj Construction, through its Proprietor Rakesh Kumar, aged about 41
years (Male) Son of Ramashray Prasad, Resident of Village- Dhoomnagar
Chauriya Tola, Ward No. 15, P.O.- Dhoomnagar P.S.- Jagdishpur, District-
West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, Through its Secretary, Health Department Govt. of Bihar.
2. The Chief General Manager (Project), Bihar Medical Services and
Infrastructure Corporation Ltd, (Govt. of Bihar Undertaking), 2dn and 3rd
Floor Swasthya Bhawan, Behind IGIMS, Seikhpura, Adjacent to State
Health Society, Patna, Pin Code- 800014.
3. The Deputy General Manager (Projects), Bihar Medical Services and
Infrastructure Corporation Ltd, (Govt. of Bihar Undertaking), 4th Floor,
Bihar State Building Construction Corporation Ltd. Hospital Road, Shastri
Nagar, Patna, Pin Code- 800023.
4. The General Manager (Project and Design), Bihar Medical Services and
Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. (Govt. of Bihar Undertaking), 4th Floor,
Bihar State Building Construction Corporation Ltd. Hospital Road, Shastri
Nagar, Patna, Pin Code- 800023.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ravi Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Kinkar Kumar, SC-9
For the BMSICL : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Ayush Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Kanishka Shankar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 19-12-2024
The petitioner is concerned with the debarment order
which is produced at Annexure-P/4. Admittedly, petitioner
entered into a contract with the respondent Bihar Medical
Patna High Court CWJC No.18082 of 2024 dt.19-12-2024
2/4
Services & Infrastructure Corporation Limited (‘BMSICL’ for
short). The work was not completed within the stipulated time
and hence the impugned order was passed.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner’s contention is that since the building is completed
and only the glass work is remaining, the BMSICL should take
over the building and within 7 days, the petitioner would
complete the glass work. It is also submitted by the petitioner
that this court has held in many cases that there can be no
debarment, till the completion of the work.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent, Sri. Vikas
Kumar however, refers to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Patel Engineering Ltd. Vs Union of India reported in
(2012) 11 SCC 257, to contend that it is the absolute authority
of the Awarder to decide whether they would enter into any
further contracts with a person who has delayed a work; even
when there is no express condition in the tender document for
debarment. It is also submitted that the debarment is only with
respect to any further contracts from the BMSICL.
4. We are not impressed with the argument of the
learned Counsel for the petitioner that hand-over has to be
taken of the building wherein the glass work has not been
Patna High Court CWJC No.18082 of 2024 dt.19-12-2024
3/4
completed. The glass work forms part of the contract and only
after the same is finished would the contract be complete and
only then the respondent would be obliged to take hand over of
the building. In fact, the petitioner’s contention is that he would
finish the glass work in seven days, if the hand over is taken. In
such circumstance, we do not understand why the petitioner
cannot finish the work within 7 days and hand over the
completed building to the BMSICL.
5. Having gone through the judgment cited of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, since the impugned order of debarment
talks about the Bihar Contractors Rules 2007, it cannot be as
submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the BMSICL,
that it would apply only to the BMSICL and it would not be a
disqualification for the contractor to apply for any other tender
by any other authority.
6. We cannot hence appreciate the contention that
Annexure-P/4 only applies to the BMSICL, since the debarment
is for one year or till completion of the work, whichever is
earlier. It cannot be understood as the BMSICL would lift a
debarment for any tender to be applied with itself, after the
period of one year is over, even if the work is not completed. We
also notice the reference to the Bihar Contractors Rules-2007
Patna High Court CWJC No.18082 of 2024 dt.19-12-2024
4/4
which again is in so far as the debarment applying to any
contract to which the Rules apply; which is to mean all State
Government contracts. In such circumstance, though the
BMSICL would have the authority, as per the cited decision, not
to enter into any further contract with the petitioner even if there
is no express provision for debarment, we cannot sustain the
order at Annexure-P/4. Hence, we set aside the impugned order;
especially since the work has not yet been cancelled.
7. The writ petition stands disposed of with the further
observation that the petitioner complete the glass work and seek
hand over of the building.
8. Interlocutory application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
ranjan/-
.
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 23.12.2024
Transmission Date NA