M/S Deo Construction Office vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Deo Construction, filed a writ petition challenging a letter dated April 7, 2021, issued by Respondent No. 5 (Executive Engineer) debarring them from future tenders. The petitioner argued this action was taken by an incompetent authority, violating principles of natural justice and the Bihar Contractor Registration Rules, 2007. They contended that the Engineer-in-Chief or an officer not below the rank of Chief Engineer was the competent authority, citing a previous identical case (CWJC No. 3683 of 2019). The petitioner also sought directions regarding price index/rate escalation for extended work periods and payment of GST claims. However, the petitioner restricted their argument to Prayer No. (a) concerning the debarment order. Crucially, the petitioner completed the work on February 28, 2023, during the pendency of the writ petition.

Held

The Court held that the Executive Engineer was not the competent authority to issue the debarment order dated April 7, 2021. The Court noted that this issue was decided in an identical matter, CWJC No. 3683 of 2019, where it was held that the Engineer-in-Chief or an officer not below the rank of Chief Engineer was the competent authority. The Court also took into consideration the subsequent development that the petitioner had completed the work on February 28, 2023. Consequently, the impugned order dated April 7, 2021, was set aside concerning Prayer No. (a) of the writ petition. The competent authority was directed to take note of the completion of the work and pass an order in accordance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Executive Engineer (Respondent No. 5) was the competent authority to issue the debarment order dated April 7, 2021, against the petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and the Bihar Contractor Registration Rules, 2007? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the Executive Engineer lacked the authority to issue the debarment order. They contended that, in light of Rule 11(c) read with Rule 4(b) of the Bihar Contractor Registration Rules, 2007, the Engineer-in-Chief or an officer not below the rank of Chief Engineer was the competent authority. They relied on the decision in CWJC No. 3683 of 2019, which held an Executive Engineer to be an incompetent authority for such actions. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondents regarding the competency of the authority.