M/s. Vatsa Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs The State of Bihar and Others

Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 22.6.2009 passed by the Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-Special Secretary, respondent No. 3, whereby Registration No. MUA. PrathamA-527/94 of the petitioner has been blacklisted under the provisions of Rule 11 (k), (ii), (v) of Bihar Contract Registration Rules, 2007.

The petitioner was awarded contract for widening and strengthening of Sitamarhi-Riga-Dheng Road from 0 Km. to 23.02 Km. in Sitamarhi District under Road Construction Department, Road Division, Sitamarhi, for the year 2006-2007. The total estimated cost of the aforesaid Project was about Rs. 1262.50281 lacs. An agreement to aforesaid effect was signed on 20.3.2007. The work was to be completed by 21.11.2008.

The petitioner started the work in right earnest. The petitioner soon found that some more works was required to be done. As such he filed a representation before the Executive Engineer for revised estimate of the work. Both the Executive Engineer and the Superintending Engineer approved the revised estimate of Rs. 14,37,26,000/-. The Chief Engineer vide his letter dated 20.1.2009 addressed to the Superintending Engineer, R.C.D., Muzaffarpur, accorded his technical approval in respect of rise in estimate to Rs. 14,37,26,000/-. However, the administrative approval of the same was forwarded to the Government for its consideration.

The case of the petitioner is that as bitumen and emulsion was not provided to him the progress of the work got hampered. In view of the aforesaid facts the time period for completion of the work was extended to 31.8.2009. Despite the hindrances like flood, water logging, heavy rain and non-movement of bitumen transport on account of Lok Sabha Election the petitioner completed substantial portion of the work.

His grievance is that the respondent without considering the Rule rescinded the agreement on 6.6.2009 and directed to complete the work at his risk and cost. It is relevant to state that on the other hand the Executive Engineer extended the date of upliftment of bitumen up to 31.8.2009. In the meantime, the respondent by order dated 22.6.2009 blacklisted the petitioner under the provision of Rule 11(K), (ii), (v) of Bihar Contract Registration Rules, 2007 as contained in Annexure-13.

It appears that the petitioner has also filed an appeal before respondent No. 2, (the Secretary, R.C.D.).

The petitioner submits that action of the respondent is that on one hand, the respondents have not paid total dues up to Rs. 17/- lacs and an odd. On the other hand, they have passed the impugned order blacklisting him.

The State counsel submits that the impugned order of blacklisting justifies that the petitioner indulged in mar pit in the office of Executive Engineer for which a Case No. 198 of 2009 has been instituted. Furthermore the petitioner has not shown any positive response in completing the work.

As the petitioner has already preferred an appeal before respondent No. 2, this Court is not inclined to go into the merit of the rival claim by either side.

This writ application is disposed of with direction to dispose of the statutory appeal filed u/s 13 of the Bihar Contract Registration Rules, 2007 by 7th of August, 2009.

In case the appeal is not disposed of by the aforesaid date, it will be open to the petitioner to file a petition there, for interim stay of the order which will considered on its own merit.

With the aforesaid observation this writ application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Sri P.K. Verma, learned counsel for the State as well as to Sri S.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.