Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 483 (PAT)

Ajay Associates v. State of Bihar

2022-06-20

S.KUMAR, SANJAY KAROL

body2022
Sanjay Karol, CJ. – Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): – i. To issue writ/order or direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the office order no. 5 dated 01.01.2018 issued under the signature of the Engineer in-Chief, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna by which the petitioner has been blacklisted for the period of 15 years, merely relying upon the recommendation of the Chief Engineer contained in Memo No. 6808 dated 25.09.2017, without applying its independent mind. ii. To hold and declare that the impugned order of blacklisting for indefinite period (15 years) without any valid show cause notice is violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. iii. For a direction to the respondent authorities to make payment of entire due amount including the amount of security deposit of the petitioner in connection with agreement no. 12/2009-10 dated 25.01.2010. iv. For staying the operation of impugned order dated 01.01.2018 passed by the Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Work Department, Government of Bihar, Patna as contained in Annexure-23 of this petition till the disposal of this writ petition. v. To any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Shri Ashish Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned order dated 01.01.2018 issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna (Annexure- 23 Page No. 109) was never ever served upon the petitioner who learnt of the same only when he approached the respondents for release of payment of the work executed in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. He further states that the impugned order is also vitiated on account of the fact that the authority passing the said order never ever issued any notice to show cause to the petitioner. Notice to show cause, if at all, was issued by an authority superior to the authority who never ever took any decision thereupon. 3. Shri Ashish Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner further challenges the order on the issue of proportionality, for we notice that the petitioner stands black-listed for a period of 15 years. 4. Notice to show cause, if at all, was issued by an authority superior to the authority who never ever took any decision thereupon. 3. Shri Ashish Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner further challenges the order on the issue of proportionality, for we notice that the petitioner stands black-listed for a period of 15 years. 4. The impugned order dated 01.01.2018 (Annexure- 23 Page No. 109) reads as under: – fcgkj ljdkj xzkeh.k dk;Z foHkkx ldkj.k vkns'k ldkj.k vkns'k la[;k&14@vŒÁŒ&3&33@15&05 iVuk] fnukad 01-01-2012 la;qDr lfpo] xzkeh.k dk;Z foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk ds i=kad 954 vuqŒ fnukad 27-03-2015 }kjk csfr;k ftykUrxZr dk;Z ÁeaMy cxgk&2 esa Hkykgh Vksyk ls HkwbZ/kjok iFk ,oa vU; lkr iFkksa ¼iSdst la[;k&chvkj&37vkj&067½ esa laosnd esllZ vt; ,lksfl,V] 37 eksgn~nhiqj] xksj[kiqj ¼fuca/ku la[;k&446@2009½ }kjk ,dkjukek ds vuqlkj xq.koDrkwi.kZ dk;Z ugha djus ,oa foRrh; vfu;ferrk fd;s tkus dh lwpuk Ánku djrs gq, laosnd ds fo:} vko';d dkjZokbZ djus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;kA mijksDr lwpuk ds vk/kkj ij bl dk;kZy; ds i=kad 5715 vuqŒ fnukad 27-05-2015 }kjk laosnd ls Li"Vhdj.k i`PNk dh xbZ] ftlds vkyksd esa laosnd }kjk fnukad 08-07-2015 dks viuh Li"Vhdj.k ÁLrqr fd;k x;kA mDr Li"Vhdj.k dh Nk;kÁfr eq[; vfHk;ark&3] xzkeh.k dk;Z foHkkx] iVuk dks Hkstrs gq, Li"Vhdj.k dh leh{kk dj earO; dh ekax dh xbZA eq[; vfHk;ark&3] xzkeh.k dk;Z foHkkx] iVuk ds i=kad 6108] fnukad 25-09-2017 }kjk lefiZr earO; esa mDr laosnd dks dkyh lwph esa ntZ djus dh vuq'kalk dh xbZA vr% mDr vuq'kalk ds vkyksd esa laonsd essllZ vt; ,lksfl,V] 37 eksgn~nhiqj] xksj[kiqj ¼fuca/ku la[;k&446@2009½ dks foHkkxh; vf/klwpuk la[;k&8123] fnukad 19-12-2007 dh dafMdk&11¼d½ dh mi&dafMdk ¼N%½ ,oa iFk fuekZ.k foHkkx ds dk;kZy; vkns'k la[;k&154 fnukad 18-06-2015 dh dafMdk 8 ds Øekad 1 dh mi&dafMdk ¼ch½ ds rgr 15¼iaæg½ o"kksZ ds fy, foHkkxh; dkyh lwph esa Mkyk tkrk gSA ¼'kadj Álkn flag½ vfHk;ark Áeq[k iVuk] fnukad 01-01-2018 5. We notice that the impugned order is absolutely cryptic and unreasoned, apart from the fact that the authority passing the order had never ever issued any notice to show cause to the petitioner nor was petitioner afforded any opportunity of hearing or put forth his defence. Also, the order does not justify the basis on which the petitioner stands blacklisted for a period of 15 years. Order of black-listing entails civil consequences. Hence, on all counts, the impugned order needs to be quashed. 6. Also, the order does not justify the basis on which the petitioner stands blacklisted for a period of 15 years. Order of black-listing entails civil consequences. Hence, on all counts, the impugned order needs to be quashed. 6. Accordingly, impugned order dated 01.01.2018 passed by Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna (Respondent no.5) (Annexure- 23 Page No. 109) is quashed and set aside reserving liberty to the appropriate authority to issue a fresh order, should the need so arise and take appropriate action in accordance with law. 7. Shri Ashish Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner, clarifies that should the authority take any action, petitioner shall fully cooperate and not seek any unnecessary adjournment. 8. Still further, it stands clarified that the order shall be passed in full compliance of the principles of natural justice and should the petitioner feel any need to take up the matter any further, it shall be open to do so in accordance with law. 9. The instant petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 10. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.