Million Minds Infotech Private Limited. Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Million Minds Infotech Private Limited. Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Permission to withdraw the writ petition; disposal in terms of the statements made by the respondents' Senior Counsel (reconsideration of blacklisting and of termination as stated); liberty reserved to the petitioner to assail any adverse order in accordance with law. No merits adjudication; no stay ordered and no payment direction given.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 15.10.2025 (Memo No. 4469) issued by BSRTC, terminating the petitioner's contract and blacklisting it permanently for an indefinite period, should be quashed as violative of principles of natural justice and settled principles of law. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Permission to withdraw the present writ application was granted to the petitioner.

Key takeaways

The writ application stood disposed of in terms of the statements made by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents (reconsideration of blacklisting upon decision of the representation, and consideration of the termination issue upon completion of the work).ratio¶30
In the event any adverse order is passed, the petitioner remains at liberty to assail it in accordance with law.ratio¶31
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition by Million Minds Infotech Private Limited seeking quashing of the BSRTC order dated 15.10.2025 (Memo No. 4469) terminating its contract and blacklisting it permanently for an indefinite period, allegedly in violation of principles of natural justice, together with a stay of the order and release of outstanding/pending payments. At the hearing, counsel for BSRTC stated that the petitioner's representation was already under consideration before the Administrator, that the blacklisting issue would be reconsidered while deciding the representation if the writ was withdrawn, and that, the petitioner continuing to execute the work, the termination issue would also be considered upon completion. On these statements the petitioner sought and obtained permission to withdraw; the Court disposed of the petition in terms of the statements made by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, disposed of pending applications likewise, and expressly reserved the petitioner's liberty to assail in accordance with law any adverse order subsequently passed. No issue on the merits of the termination or blacklisting was adjudicated.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19878 of 2025

======================================================

Million Minds Infotech Private Limited., having its registered office at 28/803, East End Apartment, Plot No. A-5, Mayur Vihar Phase-I Extension, East Delhi-110096, represented through its Authorised Representative, Mr. Brajesh Kumar Sharma, Male, Aged about 48 Years, S/o Amba Datta Sharma, R/O D-34, Sector 20, Near Hanuman Mandir, NOIDA, Gautam Buddha Nagar, P.S.- Sector-20, District- Gautam Buddha Nagar, U.P.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Bihar

Bihar State Road Transport Corporation through its Administrator having its office at Pariwahan Parisar, Phulwarisharif, Patna-800014

Chief of Administration, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation having its office at Pariwahan Parisar, Phulwarisharif, Patna-800014

... ... Respondents

======================================================

Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dhananjay Kashyap, Advocate Ms. Sonali Acharya, Advocate For the State : Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, AC to AAG-3 For the BSRTC : Mr. P.K. Verma, Sr. Advocate with Dr. Anand Kumar, Advocate

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)

2 03-02-2026

In the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed

for the following relief(s):-

“I. For issuance of appropriate writ / orders / direction thereby quashing the order dated 15.10.2025 as contained in Memo No. 4469 ( Annexure P13 at Page 141 ) issued by Respondent No.2, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘BSRTC’), whereby and whereunder the contract of Petitioner has been terminated and

Patna High Court CWJC No.19878 of 2025(2) dt.03-02-2026 2/3

the Petitioner has been blacklisted permanently for an indefinite period in complete violation of principles of natural justice and settled principles of law.

II. For issuance of appropriate writ / orders / direction thereby staying the Order dated 15.10.2025 as contained in Memo No. 4469 issued by Respondent No.2, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘BSRTC’), during the pendency and till disposal of instant application.

III. For issuance of appropriate writ / orders / direction to Respondent to release the outstanding / pending payment of the Petitioner. IV. Any other appropriate writ or direction which may deem fit and proper including the cost.”

Mr. P.K. Verma, learned Senior Counsel for the B.S.R.T.C., submits that the representation filed by the petitioner is already under consideration before the Administrator, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation. It is further submitted that, in the event the petitioner withdraws the present writ application, the concerned authority while deciding the representation shall reconsider and pass an appropriate order with respect to the issue of blacklisting of the company concerned.

It is further submitted that, notwithstanding the

Patna High Court CWJC No.19878 of 2025(2) dt.03-02-2026 3/3

order of termination, the petitioner is continuing with the execution of the work in question, and in the event the petitioner completes the said work, the issue relating to termination shall also be considered by the concerned authority.

In view of the aforesaid statements made on behalf of the counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present writ application.

Permission, as prayed for, is granted.

Accordingly, the present writ application stands disposed of in terms of the statements made by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents.

In the event any adverse order is passed, the petitioner shall be at liberty to assail the same in accordance with law.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(Sudhir Singh, J.)

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J.)

Gaurav Kumar, Ibrar/-

U