Chief Justice P. B. Bajanthri led Division Bench sets aside letter by Deputy General Manager (Project), Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure Corporation Limited

In Anil Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha delivered a 3-page long judgement dated September 24, 2025, wherein, it set aside the letter by Deputy General Manager (Project)-cum-Accepting Authority, the Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure Corporation Limited dated February 29, 2024. This is the 13th judgement by Chief Justice Baajathri.

The petitioner had prayed for quashing of the exparte order of debarment contained in Letter No. 669 dated February 29, 2024 by which, the Deputy General Manager (Project)-cum-Accepting Authority, the Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure Corporation Limited, a Government of Bihar undertaking without issuing any Show Cause Notice and without any jurisdiction proceeded to debar the petitioner from participating in any future contract till the work allotted to the petitioner was not completed. He had also prayed for restraining the Respondents from giving effect to and proceeding further in connection with exparte order of debarment as contained in Letter dated February 29, 2024 during the pendency of the present writ application and/or without the leave of the High Court.

Justice Bajathjri observed: '....'it is crystal clear that the petitioner has not been heard in the form of issuance of show cause notice and receipt of reply. Impugned decision has a civil consequences on the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to show cause notice and other formalities before passing any adverse order. In the light of these facts and circumstances, the petitioner has made out a case so as to interfere with the communication dated 29.02.2024 (Annexure - P/6) and it is set aside.'' The judgement added:''3. Respondents are at liberty to initiate a fresh proceeding by issuing show cause notice and seeking petitioner’s explanation. On receipt of petitioner’s explanation, proceed to pass a detailed and speaking order after due consideration of each of the contention to be raised against the show cause notice. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order.''

It is apparent that senior officials of Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure Corporation Limited need a lesson on principles of natural justice. 

Chief Justice P. B. Bajanthri led Division Bench sets aside Memo by Chief Engineer, (Planning & Engineering), South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited (SBPDCL)

In Jain Associates vs. The South Bihar Power Distribution Company through its Managing Director & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha delivered a 3-page long judgement dated September 24, 2025, wherein, it set aside the Memo October 15, 2024 by the Chief Engineer, (Planning & Engineering), South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited (SBPDCL) through its Managing Director.This is the 12th judgement by Chief Justice Baajathri.

The petitioner, a partnership firm had prayed for issuance of Writ in nature of Certiorari quashing the Memo No. 784 dated October 15, 2024 passed by Chief Engineer, (Planning & Engineering), South Bihar Power Distribution Company through its Managing Director, the Respondent No. 2, wherein the Petitioner Company was debarred from Supplying materials (cables) to SBPDCL for next five years.

The High Court observed; "2. In identical matters, we have interfered in number of cases only on the sole ground that without show-cause notice and receipt of reply and thereafter to proceed for passing adverse order like debarring/blacklisting, the respondents have not learnt lesson. Be that as it may, in the present case, petitioner has not been provided opportunity of defending his case. In other words, show-cause notice has not been issued by the competent authority as to why petitioner shall not be debarred."

The judgment reads: "3. On the sole ground, we are interfering with the impugned action of the respondents. In CWJC No. 8099 of 2025 [M/s Daksha Cable Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The South Bihar Power Distribution Company & Ors.], decided on 23.09.2025, is aptly applicable to the case in hand. 4. Accordingly, the impugned communication dated 15.10.2024 (Annexure-P/8) stands set aside reserving liberty to the concerned authority to proceed strictly in accordance with law, since the authorities exercise quasi judicial function. That apart, if any action is taken against the petitioner, it has civil consequences. In such circumstances, invariably parties who are likely to be affected should be heard in the matter. Liberty reserved to the concerned authority to pass a suitable order after due opportunity of hearing in the form of written as well as oral. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.''

Will someone teach the Managing Director, SBPDCL about principles of natural justice? His/her repeated failure to adopt these principles is indefensible.