S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by letter dated 09.09.2010 and 11.07.2012, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that, vide agreement No. 03/2007 -08 work for construction of High Level Bridge over Barakar river in Barbendiya village on Nirsa -Jamtara Road under Nirsa Block was awarded on Turnkey basis to the petitioner. The schedule period of completion of the bridge was June, 2010. The bridge in question consisted of 56 piers and 57 slabs along with 2 abutments. While the construction of bridge was in progress, in August, 2009, 5 piers got damaged due to unprecedented rain. The petitioner wrote to the department requesting the department to permit the contractor to complete the work and cure the defects. Subsequently, a First Information Report being Nirsa P.S. Case No. 196 of 2009 was lodged on 13.09.2009. On 09.09.2010, a letter was issued debarring the petitioner from participating in future contracts. Mr. Sachin Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on Clause 28 and 29 of the agreement and submits that an option is given to the contractor to complete the work and correct the defects. After 5 piers were destroyed due to heavy rain, the contractor duly informed the department and sought permission for repairing the same however, order dated 09.09.2010 debarring the petitioner from participating in future contracts has been passed. Thereafter, vide order dated 11.07.2012 the petitioner has been black -listed. It is stated that though vide order dated 27.08.2010 in Cr.M.P. No. 1392 of 2009, this Court passed an order that, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner, the department without considering the interim protection granted to the petitioner, proceeded to pass the order of debarment dated 09.09.2010 which cannot be sanctioned in law. It is further submitted that order dated 11.07.2012 is only intended to fill up the lacuna in as much as, no notice was issued to the petitioner before order dated 09.09.2010 was passed.
(3.) MR . Anil Kumar, J.C. to A.G., the learned counsel appearing for the respondents reiterating the stand taken in the counter -affidavit submitted that since a criminal case was registered against the petitioner, the petitioner was rightly debarred from participating in other contracts and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, order dated 11.07.2012 black listing the petitioner, has been passed. It is submitted that since due to negligence of the petitioner, the bridge got damaged, a criminal case was lodged and the reliance of the petitioner on Clause 28 and 29 is mis -placed.;