JUDGMENT : (Arun Kumar Jha, J.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. In the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the order contained in memo no.5163 dated 01.12.2015 issued by the Chief Engineer, Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation (hereinafter referred as ‘Corporation’) whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been debarred from participating in any future tender of the Corporation due to non-completion of Bihar Police Academy, Rajgir. 3. Brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that the Corporation floated a tender for construction of Bihar Police Academy (Administrative etc., Civil, Electrical, PHED and other works including Green Building related works) at Rajgir. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner participated in the said tender process and he was declared successful. Accordingly, the aforesaid work was allotted to the petitioner and the agreement was executed between the petitioner and the Corporation for execution of aforesaid work on 15.02.2012. The work commencement order was also issued by Executive Engineer on 15.02.2012 itself. As per the aforesaid agreement, the completion period of the work was 30 months and the completion date was 14.08.2014. There happened to be some non-cooperation on the part of the respondent authorities and they were not acting as per the terms of the agreement, the work could not be completed and the contract period was also coming to an end, the petitioner by filing an application dated 01.08.2014 prayed for extension of time mentioning all the issues in details. Thereafter, on 08.01.2015 under the supervision of Chief Engineer of the Corporation, the work was supervised and concurrence was given for approval of time extension, but the respondent authority did not adhere to the aforesaid decision and approval. As the extension of time was not given, the petitioner vide letter dated 04.03.2015 made request to the Chief Engineer of the Corporation for extension of time till 14.08.2015. Pursuant to the said letter, the Corporation vide letter dated 20.03.2015 granted the extension of time to the petitioner to complete the work before 14.08.2015. When the work was in progress and the petitioner was facing several problems in execution of works, he made several requests to the respondent authorities but they were paying no heed. All of a sudden, the Chief Engineer vide letter no. When the work was in progress and the petitioner was facing several problems in execution of works, he made several requests to the respondent authorities but they were paying no heed. All of a sudden, the Chief Engineer vide letter no. 4844 dated 03.11.2015 issued show-cause notice to the petitioner as to why he be not debarred from future tender and also to terminate the contract agreement. Further the Executive Engineer vide letter no. 1043 dated 06.11.2015 issued show-cause notice to the petitioner as to why in terms of Clause 3 of the contract agreement, steps should not taken to terminate the agreement. Pursuant to the aforesaid notices, the petitioner filed his show-cause reply vide letter dated 19.11.2015 giving the details of the problems which it was facing in execution of the work. At the same time, it also made request to grant him extension of time for further 12 months so that the work may be completed. But surprisingly the petitioner received an order contained in memo no. 5163 dated 01.12.2015 (Annexure 1) by which the Chief Engineer of the Corporation debarred him from participating in future tender till completion of the work. Thereafter, the petitioner vide letters dated 10.12.2015 and 21.12.2015 addressed to the Chief Engineer of the Corporation made a detailed representations mentioning all the facts and requested him to recall the debarment order, but the respondent authorities did not accede to the request. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present Writ. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no provision in the agreement or any other law which empowers the Respondent authority to debar the petitioner from participating in future tender. The learned counsel further submitted that there is a serious breach of agreement on the part of the respondent authorities due to which the petitioner could not adhere to the time schedule mentioned in the agreement. The learned counsel further submitted that due to the aforesaid debarment, the petitioner is facing serious problems on day to day working as there are other tenders/bids in which the petitioner has participated and it has serious apprehension that due to the said debarment, its technical bid may be rejected on this ground. The learned counsel further submitted that the aforesaid order of debarment is prejudicially causing great hardship in day to day working. The action of the Respondent authorities is arbitrary, malafide and illegal. The learned counsel further submitted that the aforesaid order of debarment is prejudicially causing great hardship in day to day working. The action of the Respondent authorities is arbitrary, malafide and illegal. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that admittedly the agreement was executed by the petitioner and the Corporation on 15.02.2012 and the work commencement order also was issued by the Executive Engineer of the Corporation on the same day i.e. 15.02.2012 itself. As per the aforesaid agreement, the completion period of the work was of 30 months and the completion date was 14.08.2014. However, the petitioner himself after having considered the pros and cons of the entire matter requested the Corporation for extension of the period for completing the work up to 14.08.2015 by its letter dated 04.03.2015 which contains the undertaking given by the petitioner mentioning categorically the time schedule for completion of the buildings in question. It has been assured that 11 buildings would be completed by 15.05.2015, 05 buildings would be completed by 15.06.2015 and 04 buildings would be completed by 15.07.2015 i.e. the total number of 20 buildings would be completed by 15.07.2015. It was categorically stipulated that structural work, brick work, under flooring work, plaster work and finishing work of remaining 22 buildings would be completed by August, 2015. However, the petitioner did not complete even a single building till 01.12.2015 and completely failed to comply with aforesaid undertaking. The learned counsel further submitted that even after lapse of 45 months, the work remained incomplete which shows that the petitioner has no seriousness and interest in completing the works of Bihar Police Academy as per the provisions of the agreement and, as such, the Corporation was compelled to take the decision of debarring the petitioner under the provisions of the Bihar Contractor Registration Rule, 2007. Thus, learned counsel submitted that the order of debarment is proper and in terms of the agreement and Contractor Registration Rules. Hence, this writ application is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Thus, learned counsel submitted that the order of debarment is proper and in terms of the agreement and Contractor Registration Rules. Hence, this writ application is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Having considered the material available on record and further considering the pleadings and submissions, it appears that in terms of the agreement dated 15.02.2012, the petitioner was required to complete the contractual works by 14.08.2014, i.e., within thirty months, but after lapse of about three years and nine months, he did not complete the said contractual work in spite of several directions/instructions as stated above. Thereafter, the respondent-department took the decision to debar the petitioner from participating in any future tender vide order dated 01.12.2015. Even prior to issuance of the aforesaid order dated 01.12.2015, the petitioner had been warned in writing by letter no.691 dated 15.07.2015 and letter no.1043 dated 06.11.2015 issued under the signature of the Executive Engineer, Rajgir Division. Besides the aforesaid two letters, a show cause notice was issued separately under the signature of the Chief Engineer of the Corporation vide letter dated 03.11.2015 before issuing the order of debarment dated 01.12.2015. The petitioner submitted its reply vide letter dated 19.11.2015 which was examined by the Corporation and, thereafter, the order of debarment was issued on 01.12.2015 in terms of provisions of Contractor Registration Rules, 2007 as well as different clauses of the agreement. 7. It is relevant to quote the impugned order dated 01.12.2015 for ready reference. The petitioner submitted its reply vide letter dated 19.11.2015 which was examined by the Corporation and, thereafter, the order of debarment was issued on 01.12.2015 in terms of provisions of Contractor Registration Rules, 2007 as well as different clauses of the agreement. 7. It is relevant to quote the impugned order dated 01.12.2015 for ready reference. ^^eq[; vfHk;ark dk dk;kZy;] fcgkj iqfyl Hkou fuekZ.k fuxe] dkSfVY; uxj iVuk&14- ldkj.k vkns'k vkns'k la[;k& ----------------------] fnukad&----------------------------------------2015 fcgkj iqfyl vdsMeh jktxhj ds fuekZ.k dk dk;Z vkns'k :Œ 181-45]42]657@& ¼,d eh ,dklh djksM+ iSrkyhl yk[k cs;kyhl gtkj N lks larkou :i;s½ dh jkf'k ij dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark] fcgkj iqfyl Hkou fuekZ.k fuxe ds i=kad 150 ¼vuqŒ½ fnukad& 15-02-2012 }kjk esjklZ bZŒihŒvkbZŒ,yŒ ¼Hkkjr ljdkj dk mn;e½ dks bZ&VsUMfjax }kjk U;wure fufonkdkj gksus ds vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k FkkA bl dk;Z dk ,djkjukek la[;k &1 ,Q 2@3 vkWQ 2012 gSA ,djkjukek ds vuqlkj dk;Z izkjaHk dh frfFk 15-02-2012 ,oa dk;Z lekfIr dh frfFk 14-08-2014 FkhA ¼2½ dk;Z dh izxfr ,djkjukek dh vof/k esa Hkh /kheh jgh gS] ftlds fy;s esllZ bZŒihŒvkbZŒ,yŒ dks fcgkj iqfyl Hkou fuekZ.k fuxe }kjk dk;Z esa izxfr ykus gsrq yxkrkj iz;kl fd;k x;kA ¼3½ eq[; lfpo ds Lrj ij fnukad 09-01-2014 dks esllZ bZŒihŒvkbZŒ,yŒ ds v/;{k≶&izca/k funs'kd ,oa muds ojh; inkf/kdkfj;ksa ds lkFk dk;Z dh izxfr dh leh{kk dh xbZ] ftlesa esllZ bZŒihŒvkbZŒ,yŒ }kjk fnukad 14-08-2014 rd iwjk djus dk fyf[kr vk'oklu fn;k x;k Fkk] ftldk mYys[k dk;Zo`Rr tks i=kad&728 fnukad&29-01-2014 }kjk fuxZr gS] esa fd;k x;k gSA fQj Hkh dk;Z 14-08-2014 rd iwjk ugha fd;k x;kA ¼4½ bZŒihŒvkbZŒ,yŒ }kjk dk;Z dks iwjk djus ds fy;s muds i=kad & EPI/ERsite/685/ BPBCC/002 fnukad&04-03-2015 }kjk fnukad&14-08-2015 rd le;o`f) dh ekax dh x;h] ftlesa muds }kjk lHkh Hkouksa dks iwjk djus dk fyf[kr (Undertaling) fn;k x;k gSA esllZ bZŒihŒvkbZŒ,yŒ ds bl i= ds vkyksd esa mPp Lrjh; leh{kk dh xbZA bl laca/k esa dk;Zo`Rr x`g ¼vkj{kh½ foHkkx dk i=kad&2018] fnukad&23-03-2015 ds }kjk fuxZr fd;k x;k gSA esllZ bZŒihŒvkbZŒ,yŒ ds i=kad EPIERsite 685 / BPBCC/1002 fnukad 04-03-2015 }kjk fn;s x;s fyf[kr dk;Zdze ,oa vUMjVsfdax ds vk/kkj ij ,oa esllZ bZŒihŒvkbZŒ,yŒ tks Hkkjr ljdkj dk mn;e gS] ds fyf[kr vUMjVsfdax dks vk/kkj ekurs gq;s fuxe ds i=kad&,oŒD;wŒ 1667 fnukad 20-03-2015 }kjk fnukad& 14-08-2015 rd le;o`f) nh xbZA ¼5½ fuxe ds jktxhj izeaMy ds dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark }kjk ,djkjukek ds fofgr izko/kku ds v/khu vizR;kf'kr foyac dh fLFkfr esa muds i=kad 191 fnukad&16-07-2015 ,oa i=kad&1043 fnukad&06-11-2015 }kjk bZŒihŒvkbZŒ,yŒ dks dkj.k crkvks uksfVl nh xbZ gSA iqfyl fuxe ds i=kad&,pD;w&4844 ¼vuqŒ½ fnukad&03-11-2015 }kjk ,djkjukek ds izko/kku ds rgr dkjZokbZ gsrq esllZ bZŒihŒvkbZŒ,yŒ dks fnukad 15-11-2015 rd tokcnsus ds fy;s dkj.k crkvks uksfVl fuxZr dh xbZ gSA ¼6½ esllZ bZŒihŒvkbZŒ,yŒ }kjk i=kad & EPI/ERsite/685/BPBCC/1002 fnukad & 19-11-2015 }kjk mRrj fn;k x;k gS ftlds vuqlkj dk;Z iwjk djus ds fy;s bZŒihŒvkbZŒ,yŒ }kjk 12 ¼ckjg½ eghus dk le; dh ekax dh xbZ gSA bl izdkj dk;Z izkjaHk dh frfFk 15-02-2012 ls vHkh rd yxHkx 03 o"kZ 09 eghus dk le; xqtj pqdk gS] tcfd dk;Z dks 14-08-2014 rd gh ¼21 o"kZ esa½ iwjk dj nsuk FkkA iqu buds }kjk 12 eghus ds le; dk ekax fd;k tk jgk gS] tks muds dk;Z ds izfr yxkrkj v:fp ,oa mnklhurk dks n'kkZrk gSA mijksDr rF;ksa ls Li"V gS fd dk;Z dks iwjk djus esa vizR;kf'kr fuyc ,oa vuko';d i=kpkj }kjk fuxe dk cgqewY; le; ,oa lalk/ku u"V fd;k x;kA lE;qd fopkjksijkUr ellZ bZŒihŒvkbZŒ,yŒ dks fcgkj iqfyl ,dsMeh] jktxhj ds dk;Z iwjk ugh djus ds dkj.k vxyh fufonk esa Hkkx ysus ls oafpr ¼fMckj½ fd;k tkrk gSaA gŒ@& eq[; vfHk;ark Kkikad&5163@iVuk] fnukad&01-12-2015 izfrfyfi& esllZ bZŒihŒvkbZŒ,yŒ] dksj&3] Ldksi dEiysDl] yks/kh jksM] ubZ fnYyh&110003] QSDl&9111&24363426 dks lwpukFkZA gŒ@&eq[; vfHk;ark^^ 8. In the light of discussions made here-in-above, it is apparent that the petitioner has attributed the delay in execution of work to the acts of the respondents like not providing designs on time and further not paying any heed to the request made by the petitioner in this regard. No doubt, the petitioner undertook to abide by the stipulated time limit and the respondent authorities issued two show cause notices dated 03.11.2015 and 06.11.2015 for debarring the petitioner from future work and terminating the contract. A detailed reply to the show cause notices was furnished by the petitioner wherein it submitted that the desired progress could not be achieved due to various reasons not attributable to the petitioners and it enumerated the major reasons in detail in its reply to the show cause notices and sought time of 12 months for completing the project. 9. The reasoned order dated 01.12.2015 of the Chief Engineer does not take into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner. Calling for show cause and not considering the same while passing the order makes such exercise only an empty formality. This goes against various judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court, i.e., in the cases of UMC Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Food Corporation of India and Anr., reported in (2021) 2 SCC 551 , Isolators and Isolators through its Proprietor Mrs. Sandhya Mishra Vs. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. and Anr, reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 330 and M/s Chauhan Builders Raibareli Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 694. 10. In the light of these facts and circumstances and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the petitioner has made out a prima-facie case so as to interfere with the impugned order dated 01.12.2015 passed by the Chief Engineer of the respondent-Corporation 11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.12.2015, passed by the Chief Engineer, of the respondent-Corporation is set aside. 12. This writ petition stands allowed.