In Manglam Infra and Engineering Ltd vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Partha Sarthy delivered a 18-page long judgment dated August 22, 2025. This is the 23rd judgement by Justice Pancholi as chief justice. Justice Pancholi dismissed the petition saying,"we are not inclined to entertain the present petition."
The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the petitioner had prayed that the order dated December 18, 2024, passed by the Additional Chief Executive Officer-cum-Secretary (Respondent No.2) be quashed and the respondents be restrained from giving effect to the order during pendency of the petition. It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner company was engaged in providing consultancy services for various construction work. It was stated that agreement dated December 27, 2021 was executed between the petitioner and Respondent No.2 for providing consultancy services for project management and construction supervision of bridges on rural road in the State of Bihar at a financial rate of Rs.8,16,00,000.00 excluding GST. It was stated that the schedule for completion of the task under the agreement was two years with the possibility of extension based on the project requirement and satisfactory performance. The petitioner had averred that the agreement was never extended and, as such, in terms of Clause 9 of the agreement, the said agreement expired on December 27, 2023 without any adverse report or complaint against the petitioner. It was stated that after the expiry of the agreement and after the petitioner ceased to have supervisory control over the construction works, the Engineer-in-Chief, vide his letter dated July 18, 2024 issued show-cause notice to the petitioner seeking clarification as to why the services being provided by the petitioner firm be not treated as unsatisfactory. The reasons stated in the said show-cause is that there was damage to an under construction bridge under Package No. BR01P2R –49 (T05–Nepal Border Jhala Chowky Jakirparast, Last Border) (Construction of HL Bridge at CH – 33.20 K.M. over River alignment, Length of Bridge 182.65 Meter) which got damaged on June 18, 2024.
The petitioner submitted reply to the show-cause notice on July 23, 2024. Two months thereafter, the petitioner received communication dated September 10, 2024 from Respondent No.2 in which Respondent No.2 placed reliance on preliminary report submitted by four members inspection team and asked the petitioner to show-cause as to why: (i) The performance security be not forfeited; (ii) All the pending payments be not stopped in terms of Clause 8(ii) of the agreement; and (iii) The penalty amount be not recovered on account of damage caused to the bridge.
It was also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner sent an e-mail dated September 12, 2024 and requested for copy of the preliminary inspection report. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted reply. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the complete copy of inspection report was never furnished. The petitioner thereafter submitted reply on September 30, 2024. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Additional Secretary passed the impugned order on December 18, 2024 by relying upon Clause Nos.8, 13 and 16 of the agreement and proceeded to debar the petitioner from participating in all future tenders and further blacklisted the agency for a period of five years. Therefore, the petitioner had filed the petition. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that before passing the impugned order, no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and, in fact, there is no provision in the agreement for blacklisting the petitioner company.
The petitioner's counsel had relied on the decisions by the Supreme Court in Gorkha Security Services vs. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105, UMC Technologies (P) Ltd. vs. Food Corpn. of India, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 551, Blue Dreamz Advertising Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1896 and Techno Prints vs. Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation & Anr., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 343.
Justice Pancholi observed: "14. Looking to the seriousness of the matter, which is in connection with damage of the bridge because of poor quality of construction, which was not properly supervised, and as per the provisions contained in the agreement, when the respondent department has taken action of blacklisting the petitioner as per the agreement and after following the principles of natural justice, we are of the view that the aforesaid decisions would not be helpful to the petitioner."
P.K. Shahi, the Advocate General for the respondents had submitted that the petitioner had alternative remedy as per Clause 17 of the agreement and, therefore, in case of any dispute between the parties, the same was required to be amicably settled. He also submitted that if the dispute is not settled amicably, the matter is required to be referred to the Arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute.
Justice Pancholi's judgement recorded: "it is revealed that the petitioner was under obligation to submit monthly progress report regarding condition/status of bridges coming under his supervision and in the monthly progress submitted by the petitioner it was reported that Araria bridge (bridge in question) was constructed with good quality and remarked as “OK”. However, thereafter it was found that Araria bridge was damaged on 18.06.2024 and, therefore, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner submitted reply on 23.07.2024. It is relevant to observe that the damaged bridge was inspected by the departmental investigation team from 21.06.2024 to 23.06.2024 in which the quality of the bridge was not found satisfactory and, therefore, the preliminary investigation report was submitted by the said team on 30.07.2024....In fact, it is revealed from the record that the investigation of the damaged bridge was carried out by the Testing and Research Institute, Road Construction Department, Technical Examiner Cell Monitoring Department and IIT Patna."
He also recorded that during the said investigation, "it was revealed that the material, concrete and reinforcement used in the construction work were found to be not up to the standard, despite which, the petitioner submitted report as everything is “OK”....8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that when the committee of experts consisting of four different department investigated the bridge and when Araria bridge, i.e., the bridge in question, was found damaged on 18.06.2024, the respondent authorities were justified in initiating action under different clauses of the agreement and show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order of blacklisting. We are of the view that there is no violation of principles of natural justice as alleged by the petitioner."
No comments:
Post a Comment