ORDER : (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) : M/s Aastha Constructions has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a set of prayers which primarily concern cancellation of tender notices vide MID/CHAIBASA/F2-07/2022-23 (in short, W1) and MID/CHAIBASA/F2-08/2022-23 (in short, W2) and consequent issuance of MID/CHAIBASA/F2-16/2022-23 (2nd Call) & MID/CHAIBASA/F2-17/2022-23 (2nd Call) dated 3rd January 2023 – no prayer for cancellation of 2nd Call tender notices has been made in the writ petition. 2. The following prayers have been made in the writ petition: “a. For quashing of Letter No. 1683/DMFT dated 24.12.2022 (Annexure-17) wherein and whereby the Respondent No.3 unilaterally and ex-parte without issuance of any show cause has directed Respondent No.5 to cancel the tenders MID/CHAIBASA/F2-07/2022-23 & MID/CHAIBASA/F2-08/2022-23 and further directing to blacklist the name of the Petitioner for swearing false affidavit and to register FIR against the Petitioner. AND/OR b. For stay on the operation, execution and implementation of the Letter No. 1683/DMFT dated 24.12.2022 (Annexure-17) wherein and whereby the Respondent No.3 unilaterally and ex-parte without issuance of any show cause has directed to blacklist the name of the Petitioner for swearing false affidavit and to register FIR against the Petitioner. AND/OR c. For directing the Respondent to allow the Petitioner to participate in re-tender of the same set of work vide Tender Nos. MID/CHAIBASA/F2-16/2022-23 (2nd Call) & MID/CHAIBASA/F2-17/2022-23 (2nd Call) dated 03.01.2023 (Annexure-19) issued by Respondent No.5 since the Petitioner has been recommended to be blacklisted by Respondent No.3 on frivolous grounds by violating the principals of natural justice. AND/OR d. For stay on Tenders No. MID/CHAIBASA/F2-16/2022-23 (2nd Call) & MID/CHAIBASA/F2-17/2022-23 (2nd Call) dated 03.02.2023 till the pendency of the present writ application. AND/OR e. For directing the Respondents to bring on record the report of the enquiry committee constituted vide letter No. 1194/DMFT dated 01.11.2022 by Respondent No.3 for the complaint made M/s S.P Traders against the Petitioner. AND/OR f. Any other relief or reliefs as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper for which the petitioner is very much entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Upon this writ petition being mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter was listed on 16th January 2023. AND/OR f. Any other relief or reliefs as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper for which the petitioner is very much entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Upon this writ petition being mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter was listed on 16th January 2023. The next day, the following order was passed by this Court: “I.A. No. 237 of 2023 This writ petition has been filed by M/s Aastha Constructions which is aggrieved of the order dated 24th December 2022 by which the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum has directed the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa to cancel the award of tenders MID/CHAIBASA/F2-07/2022-23 and MID/CHAIBASA/F2-08/2022-23. The grievance of the petitioner is that without affording an opportunity of hearing to it, the Deputy Commissioner which has no powers in the matter of award or cancellation of the subject tenders, has issued the aforesaid direction, though the petitioner has been declared L-1 bidder. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the impugned communication which has been issued taking cognizance of the letter dated 10th October 2022 written by M/s S.P. Traders to the Chief Engineer, Water Resources (Minor Irrigation), Ranchi to submit that the allegations of submitting false affidavit inasmuch as Rajnish Kumar Singh who is the younger brother of the proprietor of the petitioner-construction company is working in the capacity of correspondence clerk in the Minor Irrigation Division, Chaibasa, and the allegation against Krishnalya Construction with which the petitioner-construction company has some past association has been blacklisted, are incorrect. Referring to the writ averments, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made a categoric statement in the writ petition as regards incorrectness of the allegations made in the letter dated 10th October 2022. Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, the learned assisting counsel to the learned Advocate General appears for the State of Jharkhand and seeks adjournment by one week for filing counter-affidavit in the matter. Prima facie, this appears that at least one of the allegations made by M/s S.P. Traders that the petitioner-construction company has a near relative in terms of clause 6.2 of the notification dated 29th October 2018 is not correct. Accordingly, any further proceedings in Tender Nos. Prima facie, this appears that at least one of the allegations made by M/s S.P. Traders that the petitioner-construction company has a near relative in terms of clause 6.2 of the notification dated 29th October 2018 is not correct. Accordingly, any further proceedings in Tender Nos. MID/CHAIBASA/F2-16/2022-23 (2nd Call) and MID/CHAIBASA/F2-17/2022-23 (2nd Call) dated 3rd February 2023 are stayed till the next date of hearing. Post this matter on 24th January 2023 to be taken up after LPA No. 138 of 2020. I.A. No. 237 of 2023 is disposed of. Copy of this order be given to the learned counsels appearing for the parties.” 4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case are that pursuant to floating of tenders for W1 and W2 works for which a newspaper advertisement was issued on 21st September 2022 and published on the website of www.jharkhandtenders.gov.in on 24th September 2022, the petitioner-construction company submitted its bids for four works under W1 and two works under W2 and it was declared L-1 bidder on 7th October 2022 for three works at Item Nos.1, 3 and 5 under W1 and both the works under W2. Thereafter, M/s S.P. Traders which is respondent no.6 made a complaint with respect to Item No.1 under W1 against the petitioner-construction company for furnishing false information to the Chief Engineer, whereupon a direction was issued to the respondent no.4 to conduct an enquiry into the allegations made against the petitioner-construction company. A similar complaint was given by the respondent no.6 to the respondent no.2 on 10th October 2022. 5. There is no dispute that the tender notices for all the works under W1 and W2 have been cancelled on 2nd January 2023 and 2nd Call tender notices have been issued for all the works under the aforementioned W1 and W2 on 3rd January 2023 – the last date for participation in which was 25th January 2023. 6. The respondent no.6 is a bidder in respect of the Item No.1 under W1 which made a complaint to the respondent nos.2 and 3 that the petitioner-construction company has furnished false informations. In its complaint dated 10th October 2022, the respondent no.6 has stated that the younger brother of the proprietor of the petitioner-construction company is posted at Chaibasa Office under Minor Irrigation Circle about whom the petitioner-construction company has furnished a false affidavit. In its complaint dated 10th October 2022, the respondent no.6 has stated that the younger brother of the proprietor of the petitioner-construction company is posted at Chaibasa Office under Minor Irrigation Circle about whom the petitioner-construction company has furnished a false affidavit. The second allegation made in the complaint dated 10th October 2022 is that the proprietor of the petitioner-construction company had another company registered in past in the name of Krishnalya Construction which has been put under blacklist and now the said proprietor has participated in the reference tender notices in another name. 7. In the letter dated 24th December 2022, the respondent no.3 has issued the following directions: ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh≶&mikqDr dk dk;kZy; if'peh flagHkwe] pkbZcklkA (DMFT CELL) i=kad&1683@ DMFT, fnukad&24&12&2022 izs"kd] ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh≶&mikqDr if'peh flagHkwe] pkbZcklkA izsf"kr dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark y?kq flapkbZ ize.My] pkbZcklkA fo"k;% & fn;s x;s fcUnqvksa dk vuqikyu djrs gq, izfrosnu miyC/k djkus ds laca/k esaA izlax% & vkidk i=kad&1026] fnukad&20-10-2022 ,oa M/s S.P. Traders, U;w dkWyksuh] Vqaxjh] pkbZcklk dk i=kad&'kwU;] fnukad&10-10-2022- egk'k;~] mi;qZDr fo"k;d ,oa izklafxd i= of.kZr rF;ksa ds vkyksd esa dguk gS fd % & 1- vkidk i=kad &1026] fnukad&20-10-2022 esa of.kZr lHkh 07 ¼lkr½ ;kstukvksa dk fufonk iqu% djkuk lqfuf’pr djsaxsA 2- xyr 'kiFk&i= layXu djus okys laosnd&vkLFkk daLVªD'ku ds lapkyd ds0ds0 flag dk uke dkyh lwph esa ntZ djuk lqfuf'pr fd;k tk;A 3- xyr 'kiFk&i= nk;j djus ds vkyksd esa lqlaxr /kkjkvksa ds rgr LFkkuh; Fkkuk esa izkFkfedh ntZ djkuk lqfuf'pr fd;k tk;A mDr ds vkyksd esa funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd mijksDr 01 ls 03 ij vafdr fcUnqvksa dk vuqikyu djrs gq, izfrosnu v|ksgLrk{kjh dk;kZy; dks miyC/k djkuk lqfuf'pr djsaxsA fo'oklHkktu ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh≶&mikqDr if'peh flagHkwe] pkbZcklkA English Translation Office of the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa. (DMFT CELL) Letter No. 1683/DMFT, Dated-24.12.2022 From, District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner West Singhbhum, Chaibasa. To, The Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Division, Chaibasa. Sub:-For furnishing report after complying the given points. Ref:-Your Letter No.-1026, dated-20.10.2022 and Letter No.-0, dated-10.10.2022 of M/s S.P. Traders, New Colony, Tungri, Chaibasa. Sir, This is to direct in connection with the above subject and the facts mentioned in the relevant letter that:- 1. To ensure re-tender of all the 07 (seven) schemes mentioned in the Letter No.-1026, dated-20.10.2022. 2. To ensure blacklisting of Sri K.K. Singh, the director of Astha Construction for enclosing false affidavit. 3. Sir, This is to direct in connection with the above subject and the facts mentioned in the relevant letter that:- 1. To ensure re-tender of all the 07 (seven) schemes mentioned in the Letter No.-1026, dated-20.10.2022. 2. To ensure blacklisting of Sri K.K. Singh, the director of Astha Construction for enclosing false affidavit. 3. To lodge the FIR under relevant provisions with the local police station for filing false affidavit. In view of above, it is directed to furnish a report to the office of the undersigned after complying the aforesaid point nos. 01 to 03. Yours faithfully Sd/- District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa. 8. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged cancellation of the tender notices for W1 and W2 and consequent 2nd Call notices for the same works raising inter alia the following grounds: (i) decision to cancel tender notices for W1 and W2 is based on a false complaint made by the respondent no.6 (ii) decision of blacklisting the petitioner-construction company has been taken unilaterally without any show-cause notice (iii) decision of the Tender Committee has been interfered with by an outsider authority on the basis of a resolution dated 7th December 2022 of Managing Committee of the District Mining Foundation Trust which was not a part of the tender conditions nor brought to the notice of any bidder. 9. It is submitted that the apprehension raised by the State of Jharkhand in its counter-affidavit, that the petitioner-construction company may not complete the reference works on the ground that Krishnalya Construction Pvt. Limited and M/s Aakriti Constructions with whom the petitioner-construction company has no business relations have in past could not complete the works, is a mere guesswork. 10. The relevant portions of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 5 are extracted below: “10. That it is stated that the company named Krishnalaya Construction has not been blacklisted by the State of Jharkhand but it is also pertinent to state that many construction works allotted in the division to the said company through various NITs have remained unfinished even after lapse of the time stipulated for completion of the said works. 11. That it is stated that the company named Krishnalaya Construction has not been blacklisted by the State of Jharkhand but it is also pertinent to state that many construction works allotted in the division to the said company through various NITs have remained unfinished even after lapse of the time stipulated for completion of the said works. 11. That it is further stated that the proprietor of the petitioner company is associated to two other companies namely Krishnalaya Construction (Proprietor-Ranju Singh, W/o K.K. Singh, present petitioner and Himanshu Kumar, near relative) and Aakriti Construction (proprietor-Ranju Singh, W/o K.K. Singh, present petitioner and Anju Singh, near relative). The present petitioner firm has been formed in the year 2022 as a proprietorship. 12. That Krishnalaya Construction was awarded the work of construction of "series of checkdam on Asantaliya Nala under Sonua Block, West Singhbhum" vide contract no.WRD/MID/CHAIBASA/IFB-01/2017-18. The said work was to be completed within a period of 11 (eleven) months, the said work has still not been completed by the Krishnalaya Construction resulting into heavy losses to the Department. 13. That similarly Aakriti Construction was awarded the work of "Barbed wire fencing with R.C.C pillar around raiyati land where asbestors dump deposited 2.6 K.M. (Supply R.C.C. fencing post, size 150x150mm alongwith Barbet wire, civil work grounting etc.) at abandoned Mines Roro" vide agreement no. 07F2-2020-2021, dated 18.12.2020. That the time of completion of work was of two months and the same has remained incomplete as of today causing financial loss to the Department. 14. That as earlier mentioned the DMFT Management Committee Meeting headed by the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa which was held on 07.12.2022 wherein Agenda No. 3 it was decided that such contractors in whose favour previous work has been allotted and the same have been kept pending/incomplete by the contractor, such contractors will not be allowed to participate in future NITs for allotment of new/fresh work until and unless earlier work allotted to them has been completed in toto.” 11. The enquiry report dated 7th November 2022 vide Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit records that the information supplied by the petitioner-construction company is not false and does not attract Rule 6.2 of the Jharkhand Water Resources Contractors Registration Rules, 2018. The enquiry report dated 7th November 2022 vide Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit records that the information supplied by the petitioner-construction company is not false and does not attract Rule 6.2 of the Jharkhand Water Resources Contractors Registration Rules, 2018. This rule provides that a bidder is required to disclose whether his near relative such as husband, wife, mother, father or own brother or sister is working on a post not below the rank of the Divisional Accountant Officer or the Junior Engineer. It is a matter of record that Mr. Rajneesh Kumar Singh who is younger brother of the proprietor of the petitioner-construction company is a Lower Division Clerk posted in Minor Irrigation Division, Seraikella Circle. However, the said report indicates that the Enquiring team has found the petitioner's not disclosing in his affidavit about his blood relation working in the department improper. As regards the second allegation that the proprietor of the petitioner-construction company had another company registered in past in the name of Krishnalya Construction Pvt. Limited, the enquiry report refers to the name of shareholders who are not associated with the petitioner-construction company. This further appears from the enquiry report dated 7th November 2022 that the allegation of blacklisting of Krishnalaya Construction Pvt. Limited could not be verified. 12. This further appears from the enquiry report dated 7th November 2022 that the allegation of blacklisting of Krishnalaya Construction Pvt. Limited could not be verified. 12. The enquiry report dated 7th November 2022 is extracted below : vuqe.My inkf/kdkjh dk dk;kZy;] lnj pkbZcklkA ¼xksiuh; 'kk[kk½ i=kad&571@xks0 fnukad&07&11&2022 izs"kd vuqe.My inkf/kdkjh lnj pkbZcklkA izsf"kr] ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh≶&mikqDr if'peh flagHkwe] pkbZcklkA fo"k;% & M/s S.P. Traders ds ifjokn i= ds laca/k esaA izlax% & Hkonh; Kkikad 1194@ DMFT fnukad&01-11-2022- egk"k; mijksDr fo"k;d ,oa izlaxk/khu i= ds vkyksd esa fnukad 04-11-2022 dks vuqe.My inkf/kdkjh lnj pkbZcklk lgk;d lekgÙkkZ] if'peh flagHkwe ,oa dk;Zikyd n.Mkf/kdkjh] lnj pkbZcklk }kjk y?kq flapkbZ ize.My pkbZcklk ds dk;kZy; ,oa vkoklh; ifjlj dk fujh{k.k fd;k x;kA ftldh tkap izfrosnu fuEuor gS% & 1- ¼'kiFk i= lR;kiu½ Ashtha Construction }kjk lefiZr 'kiFk i= ds Øekad 5 esa jDr laca/kh }kjk ty lalk/ku foHkkx esa dk;Z u djus laca/kh ckr dks vafdr fd;k x;k gSA fujh{k.k ds nkSjku >kj[k.M ljdkj ty lalk/ku foHkkx ds vf/klwpuk l0&4590@fnukad 29-10-2011 }kjk fuxZr xtV ds dafMdk la0&6-2 esa fy[kk x;k gS fd ^^,sls laosnd fdlh vapy esa fufonk lefiZr djus ds gdnkj ugha gksaxs ftlesa muds utnhdh laca/kh ¼ifr@iRuh@ekrk@firk@lgksnj HkkbZ vFkok lgksnj cgu½ ize.Myh; ys[kkiky ;k duh; vfHk;ark ls vU;wu Lrj ds inkf/kdkjh ds :i esa dk;Zjr gSa^^A bl xtV ds vuqlkj jDr laca/kh dk ftØ ugha gS] ysfdu lgksnj HkkbZ dk ftØ gSA fujh{k.k ds nkSjku f’kdk;rdÙkkZ ds vkifÙk ij Ashtha Construction esa lapkyd K.K. Singh ds lgksnj HkkbZ ds ckjs Nku&chu dh xbZA ftlesa Kkr gqvk fd budk lgksnj HkkbZ jtuh'k dqekj flag] rRdkyhu y?kw flapkbZ ize.My] ljk;dsyk esa fuEu oxhZ; fyfid ds in ij inLFkkfir gSA ftldk osrueku 5200] xzsM is0&1900 :i;s dqy Basic Pay 7100.00 :i;k gS] tcfd ize.Myh; ys[kkiky ;k duh; vfHk;ark dk osrueku 9900&34800 ,oa xzsM is0&4600 gS] tks mlesa vU;wu ugha gSA vr% ;s xtV ds vuqlkj fufonk ds 'krkZsa dk mYya?ku ugha djrk gS] ysfdu buds }kjk lefiZr 'kiFk i= esa jDr laca/kh dk foHkkx esa dk;Z u djuk vafdr djuk vlaxr gSA vuqyXud % layXuA 1- xtV 2- inLFkkiu laca/kh dk;kZns'k 3- dk;kZy; }kjk fuxZr jtuh'k dqekj flag dk osru iqtkZA 2- y?kq flapkbZ foHkkx pkbZcklk ize.My ds ljdkjh tehu ij vkyh'kku edku cukdj vius ifjokj rFkk HkkbZ ds lkFk jg jgs gSa] dk lR;kiuA fujh{k.k ds nkSjku dk;kZy; esa iwN&rkN djus ij Kkr gqvk fd jtuh'k dqekj flag dks dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark] y?kq flapkbZ ize.My pkbZcklk ds dk;kZy; vkns'k i=kad 764] fnukad 01-11-2008 }kjk edku la0 & DvkoafVr fd;k x;k gS rFkk dk;Zy; }kjk cryk;k x;k fd edku lgk;d vfHk;ark ds fy;s fuekZ.kk/khu Fkk rFkk ttZj voLFkk esa FkkA ¼mDr edku esa iwoZ esa nq[kqjke ek>h] i=kpkj fyfid] Jh jke nkl lksjsu] dks"kj{kd rFkk lR;ukjk;.k iVuk;d] thi pkyd jgrs Fks½] ijarq jtuh'k dqekj flag dks vkoafVr djus ds i'pkr mUgksaus Lo;a ls vius [kpZ ij mDr edku dk th.kksZ)kj dj] pkgjnhokjh] IykLVj ,oa Q'kZ esa VkbZYl yxok;k x;k gSA ljdkjh DokVZj esa vius lgqfy;r vuqlkj dk;Z fd;k tkuk voS/kkfud ugha gS rFkk blds ,ot esa jtuh'k dqekj flag ds osru ls edku HkkM+k Hkh dVrk gS] ijarq lgk;d vfHk;ark ds fpfUgr edku dks fuEu oxhZ; fyfid dks vkoaVu djuk rFkk muds }kjk foxr 14 o"kksZa ls mDr edku esa jguk] tcfd rRdkyhu foHkkx esa dbZ lgk;d vfHk;ark dk;Zjr gSa] mudks vkoaVu ugha djuk foHkkx ds inkf/kdkjh dk ea'kk esa vlaxrrk izrhr gksrk gSA vuqyXud & 2 3- d`".kky;k Construction Proprietor K.K. Singh dks ljdkj ds }kjk dkyh lwph esa Mkyus dh f'kdk;r dk lR;kiu% & fujh{k.k ds Øe esa Memorandum and Articles of Association of Krishnalaya Construction Pvt. Ltd. ds voyksdu esa ik;k x;k fd ;g >kj[k.M ljdkj ty lalk/ku foHkkx ds dk;kZy; vkns'k i=kad 194] fnukad 04-02-2016 }kjk fucaf/kr gSa ftlesa nks 'ks;j gksYMj gSaA 1- jatw flag] firk&cyjketh jk;] 2- fgeka'kq dqekj] firk&jke inkjr daqoj gSA jatw flag Ashta Construction ds Proprietorship K.K. Singh dh /keZ iRuh gS] ijarq Krishnalaya Construction Pvt. Ltd. esa K.K. Singh dk izR;{k Hkkxhnkjh izrhr ugha gksrk gSA dk;kZy; y?kq foHkkx] pkbZcklk ls Krishnalaya Construction ds dkyh lwph (Black List) gksus laca/kh dkj.k i`PNk esa dk;kZy; vfHk;ark y?kq flapkbZ foHkkx pkbZcklk ds i=kad 1062 fnukad 04-11-2022 }kjk izfrosfnr fd;k x;k gS fd Krishnalaya Construction Pvt. Ltd. ujl.Mk pkbZcklk dk QkeZ Black Listed ls lacaf/kr bl ize.My dks ty lalk/kku foHkkx] >kj[k.M jk¡ph ls dksbZ vf/klwpuk izkIr ugha gqvk gSA vr% Krishnalaya Construction Pvt. Ltd. ds Black Listed laca/kh rF;ksa dh iqf"V ugha dh tk ldrh gSA vuqyXud % ;FkksDrA fo'oklHkktu dk;Zikyd n.Mkf/kdkjh lnj pkbZcklkA lgk;d lekgÙkkZ i0 flagHkwe vuqe.My inkf/kdkjh] lnj pkbZcklkA English Translation Office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Chaibasa. (Confidential Section) Letter No. 571/Go. Date-07.11.2022 From, Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Chaibasa. To, The District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa. Subject :- Regarding the complaint of M/s S.P. Traders Chaibasa. Reference:- Your Memo No. 1194/Dmft dated- 01.11.2022 Sir, In connection to the above-referred subject and in the light of the subject letter, the office and residential premises of Minor Irrigation Division, Chaibasa have been inspected on 04.11.2022 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Chaibasa, the Assistant Collector, West Singhbhum and the Executive Magistrate, Sadar, Chaibasa. The enquiry report is as follows: 1. (Affidavit Verification) At serial No. 5 of the affidavit submitted by Ashtha Construction, it has been mentioned that his blood relative is not working in the Water Resources Department. During inspection, it is found that it is mentioned at para No. 6.2 of the Notification No.4590/dated 29.10.2011 of Water Resources Department, Jharkhand Government that "Such a contractor shall not be entitled to submit tender in a circle in which his/her close relatives (husband/wife/mother/father/own brother or sister) is working as an officer not below the rank of Divisional Accountant or Junior Engineer”. As per this gazette, there is no mention of the blood relation but it mentions about own brother. During the inspection on the basis of the complaint, inquiry was made about the sibling of K.K. Singh, the Director, Ashta Construction and it is found that his brother Rajnish Kumar Singh is posted as a Lower Division Clerk in Minor Irrigation Division, Seraikela in the pay scale of Rs.5200/-with grade pay Rs.-1900/-having total basic pay of Rs. 7100/-, but the pay scale of the Divisional Accountant or Junior Engineer is Rs.9900-34800 and grade pay Rs. 4600/-which is not equivalent to his pay scale. Therefore, according to this gazette, the affidavit does not violate the conditions of the tender but not mentioning about the working of a blood relation in the department in the affidavit submitted by him is not proper. Enclosures 1. Gazette 2. Office Order of posting 3. Salary Slip of Rajneesh Kumar Singh issued by the office. 2. Verification as to whether he is living with his brother and family after building a palatial house on the government land of Minor Irrigation Department, Chaibasa Division. Enclosures 1. Gazette 2. Office Order of posting 3. Salary Slip of Rajneesh Kumar Singh issued by the office. 2. Verification as to whether he is living with his brother and family after building a palatial house on the government land of Minor Irrigation Department, Chaibasa Division. In course of inspection, it is found that Rajnish Kumar Singh was allotted House No.-D as per Office Order issued vide Letter No.764 dated 01.11.2008 of the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Chaibasa and it is informed by the office that the building was for the Assistant Engineer and was in dilapidated condition. (Earlier, Dukhuram Majhi, Correspondence Clerk, Sri Ram Das Soren, Treasurer and Satyanarayan Patnaik, Jeep Driver lived in the said house). But upon it being allotted to Rajnish Kumar Singh, he renovated the said house at his own expense and erected a boundary wall, got it plastered and installed tiles on the floor. Doing construction in a government quarter as per employee’s convenience is not illegal as house rent is also being deducted from the salary of Rajnish Kumar Singh. But allotment of a quarter earmarked for Assistant Engineer to a Lower Division Clerk and his residing in the aforesaid quarter since the last 14 years, whereas several Assistant Engineers were working in the department have not been allotting the quarter, shows inconsistency in the intention of the officer of the department. Enclosure- 2 3. Verification of the complain regarding blacklisting of Krishnalaya Construction, its Proprietor, K.K. Singh by the government:- In the course of inspection, it was found on perusal of Memorandum and Articles of Association of Krishnalaya Construction Pvt. Ltd. that it is registered vide Office Order No. 194, dated 04.02.2016 by Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand. It has two share holders-1. Ranju Singh, D/o Balramji Rai, 2. Himanshu Kumar, S/o Ram Padarath Kunwar. Ranju Singh is the wife of K. K. Singh, the Proprietor, Ashta Construction but direct involvement of K.K Singh in Krishnalaya Construction Pvt. Ltd. did not appear. In response to the query about blacklisting of Krishnalaya Construction from the Office of Minor Irrigation Department, Chaibasa it has been reported vide letter No.1062 dated 04.11.2022 of the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Chaibasa that this division has not received any notification from Water Resources Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi for blacklisting of Krishnalaya Construction Pvt. Ltd., Narsanda, Chaibasa. In response to the query about blacklisting of Krishnalaya Construction from the Office of Minor Irrigation Department, Chaibasa it has been reported vide letter No.1062 dated 04.11.2022 of the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Chaibasa that this division has not received any notification from Water Resources Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi for blacklisting of Krishnalaya Construction Pvt. Ltd., Narsanda, Chaibasa. Hence, the fact of blacklisting of Krishnalaya Construction Pvt. Ltd could not be confirmed. Enclosures: as above. Yours Sd/- Executive Magistrate, Officer, Sadar Chaibasa. Sd/- Assistant Collector, West Singhbhum Sd/- Sub-Divisional Sadar Chaibasa. 13. While so, the very foundation for initiation of the process of cancellation was flawed in law and least to say arbitrary. In one of the earliest judgments, in “Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa & Ors.” (2007) 14 SCC 517 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and malafide and its purpose is to check whether or not the decision has been made lawfully. 14. Opposing the prayers in the writ petition, the learned Advocate General has submitted that administrative decisions by the Government and, that too, in contractual matters are not amenable to writ jurisdiction and, moreover, decision of the government must be given primacy and should not be interfered by the Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless such decisions are found not in public interest. No doubt mere disagreement with the decision of the competent authority is not a ground for the Constitutional Courts to interfere in the matter unless it is shown that such decision is actuated with malafide or to favour someone. Other well-known grounds for interference by the writ Court with the decision of the Government are illegality, irrationality and arbitrariness. A related concept which has originated in the context of the decision-making process is that even in contractual matters the procedural fairness must be adhered to and the decision of the authority must reflect “fairness in action”. In “Michigan Rubber (India) Limited v. State of Karnataka & Ors.” (2012) 8 SCC 216 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has indicated that the Court's power to interfere with the decision of the State is very restrictive and such power is available only if the decision of the State or its instrumentalities is found wanting in reasonableness, fairness and not in public interest. 15. 15. The submission raised on behalf of the State of Jharkhand, that pursuant to the decision of the Managing Committee of the Jharkhand Mining Development Fund not to award work to a contractor which has in past failed to adhere to the time schedule is in public interest pursuant thereof the tender notices for W1 and W2 have been cancelled, cannot be accepted for more than one reason. First, the aforesaid decision dated 24th December 2022 has been taken after the petitioner and other two bidders were declared L-1 bidders for award of work under W1 and W2. Secondly, what are the reasons for non-completion of works a reference of which has been given in paragraph nos.10 to 14 of the counter-affidavit is not known and any decision by this Court to sanction cancellation of tender notices for W1 and W2 shall be only on the basis of speculation. This is trite law that the writ Court does not function or take a decision on mere possibility [“Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum” AIR 1958 SC 886 ]. 16. Besides the aforesaid flaws in the decision making process, on admitted facts, the petitioner-construction company is not a business associate or has any business relations in any manner whatsoever with the other two companies which according to the State of Jharkhand have failed to complete the work within the time schedule. 17. The concept of business associations and relations has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India” (2020) 16 SCC 489 . 18. In “Silppi Constructions Contractors” the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “23. We then come to the moot question as to whether the petitioner firm and the sister company are “related firms”, within the meaning of Clause 1.19 of the Manual of Contracts, 2007. The said clause reads as follows: 1.19. Related firms (a) In the trade of works contracts, “business relationship” is the most important factor. This is corroborated with the provision to be made in the notice of tender as such a Contractor or Corporation, wishing to be registered as an approved Contractor, should give particulars of all MES registered Contractors with whom he/it has business relationship, irrespective of the fact whether there is blood/close relationship or not. These would include all sister concerns of the Contractor or Corporation also. These would include all sister concerns of the Contractor or Corporation also. (b) In case of Contractors having blood/close relation with each other but not any business relation whatsoever, particulars of such related contractors need not be given under Serial No. 7 of the enlistment form. In such cases, it would not be correct to deny issue of tenders to these contractors if they otherwise fulfil all requirement in selection for issue of tenders. However, while deciding a tender in favour of one party, it shall be ensured that fair competition has taken place. (c) A Contractor/Corporation is termed to have “business relationship” with other Contractor(s)/Corporation(s) when one or more partner(s)/Directors(s) are common. 24. It is not disputed before us that all the partners of the petitioner firm are the Directors of the sister company and, therefore, there can be no manner of doubt that the petitioner firm and the sister company are related firms having a business relationship. Therefore, adverse remarks made against the sister concern can be used against the petitioner firm. To be fair to the learned counsel for the petitioner this point was not seriously contested before us.” 19. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment in “Reliance Energy Ltd. & Anr. v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corpn. Ltd. & Ors.” (2007) 8 SCC 1 (para no.39) to submit that the decision maker in the present case lacked clarity as regards the manner how to deal with L-1 bidder. It is submitted that L-1 bidder may not have a vested right to get award of the work but he must be put to notice and dealt with in a fair manner. 20. In “Reliance Energy Ltd.” the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “39. In Reliance Airport Developers (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India the Division Bench of this Court has held that in matters of judicial review the basic test is to see whether there is any infirmity in the decision-making process and not in the decision itself. This means that the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and he must give effect to it otherwise it may result in illegality. This means that the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and he must give effect to it otherwise it may result in illegality. The principle of “judicial review” cannot be denied even in contractual matters or matters in which the Government exercises its contractual powers, but judicial review is intended to prevent arbitrariness and it must be exercised in larger public interest. Expression of different views and opinions in exercise of contractual powers may be there, however, such difference of opinion must be based on specified norms. Those norms may be legal norms or accounting norms. As long as the norms are clear and properly understood by the decision-maker and the bidders and other stakeholders, uncertainty and thereby breach of the rule of law will not arise. The grounds upon which administrative action is subjected to control by judicial review are classifiable broadly under three heads, namely, illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. In the said judgment it has been held that all errors of law are jurisdictional errors. One of the important principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment is that whenever a norm/benchmark is prescribed in the tender process in order to provide certainty that norm/standard should be clear. As stated above “certainty” is an important aspect of the rule of law. In Reliance Airport Developers the scoring system formed part of the evaluation process. The object of that system was to provide identification of factors, allocation of marks of each of the said factors and giving of marks at different stages. Objectivity was thus provided.” 21. The learned Advocate General has lastly submitted that even where no reasons have been recorded by the employer but the decision taken by the employer has been found to be in public interest the writ Court shall not interfere with such decision. 22. As noticed above, the complaint made by the respondent no.6 against the petitioner-construction company has been found without any substance as disclosed in the enquiry report dated 7th November 2022. Of course, now the State of Jharkhand has tried to justify the termination on the ground of a decision taken by the Managing Committee of the Jharkhand Mining Development Fund, but then, the issue which falls for consideration before this Court is whether such a decision can be validly applied in the present case in the name of public interest. Of course, now the State of Jharkhand has tried to justify the termination on the ground of a decision taken by the Managing Committee of the Jharkhand Mining Development Fund, but then, the issue which falls for consideration before this Court is whether such a decision can be validly applied in the present case in the name of public interest. We are unable to accept the stand put forth by the State of Jharkhand for the reasons that (i) There is no such stipulation under NIT dated 21st September 2022, (ii) Complaint made by the respondent no.6 has been found without any substance, (iii) Tender Committee took decision before a decision was taken not to award work to such contractors who in past failed to adhere to the timeline and (iv) That decision was not put to the petitioner-construction company nor a show-cause notice was issued to it. There are other related issues also which are bearing in the minds of the Court, such as, any sanction by this Court to cancellation of tender notices for W1 and W2 may cause serious prejudice to other similarly situated contractor(s) whose tender shall be cancelled by the State of Jharkhand – such persons are not before us. 23. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no.6 has raised an objection to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the Letter No. 1683/DMFT dated 24th December 2022 is an internal communication which is not open to challenge and since no final decision on blacklisting has been taken the writ petition is pre-mature. To lay support to the aforesaid submission, the learned senior counsel has referred to the judgment in “Rajasthan Housing Board & Anr. v. G.S. Investments & Anr.” (2007) 1 SCC 477 . This judgment is completely out of the context. The contention that the decision dated 24th December 2022 is an internal communication not open to challenge is without any substance simply for the reason that the said decision has formed the foundation for the actions taken or proposed against the petitioner-construction company. After all the writ Court is not bound by the technicalities as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani” (1989) 2 SCC 691 . After all the writ Court is not bound by the technicalities as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani” (1989) 2 SCC 691 . It is contended that the tender notices for 2nd Call are not under challenge in the present proceeding and while so, the Court should not interfere in the matter. On this issue, all that we intend to observe is that 2nd Call notices are the consequence of cancellation of the tender notices for W1 and W2. It is a well-known proposition in law which takes its origin in the maxim “sublato fundamento cadit opus” that when the foundation goes the superstructure falls. Therefore, once the initial decision to cancel the tender notices for W1 and W2 is interfered by this Court as a consequence thereof 2nd Call notices do not survive. 24. In “Coal India Ltd. v. Ananta Saha” (2011) 5 SCC 142 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “32. It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, subsequent proceedings would not sanctify the same. In such a fact situation, the legal maxim sublato fundamento cadit opus is applicable, meaning thereby, in case a foundation is removed, the superstructure falls.” 25. As a last ditch effort to persuade this Court not to interfere in the matter, Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no.6 has contended that a contractor who furnished a false affidavit cannot be heard to raise any grievance in respect of the decision cancelling the tender notices for W1 and W2. On a glance at the 2018 Rules and more particularly Rule 6.2, the affidavit furnished by the petitioner-construction company cannot be said to be false and the observation by the Enquiring team in the enquiry report dated 7th November 2022 that the petitioner should have disclosed employment of his blood relation has no foundation under any applicable law or statutory rules and is nothing but just a high moral ground taken in the enquiry report. 26. 26. This is necessary to indicate that the works at Item Nos.1, 3 and 5 under W1 and both the works under W2 are small contracts for short durations, the descriptions of which are given below: W1 Item 1: Construction of 5100 feet PCC road from Gundipua Sonaposi village via Ordhan Sawaiyan's House in Panchayat Harila under Block Sadar, West Singhbhum District Item 3: Construction of two spane RCC Bridge Jaldiha REO road in Kasira Panchayat (Part-1) under Block Jagannathpur, West Singhbhum District Item 5: Construction of RCC Bridge on Barsati Nala on the way Karthabeda to Jharbeda Road (near Lakhi Oraons field) in Panchayat Jharbeda under Block Anandpur, West Singhbhum District W2 Item 1: Construction of 2600 feet PCC road from NH-75 to Kuira village and 320 feet Guardwallet, Panchayat Jaipur under Block Hatgamharia, West Singhbhum District Item 2: Construction of 4500 feet PCC road in village Gundijora (Tola Gitilor) from Noamundi Todetopa Raj Barja Garage to Gitillor Primary School under Block Noamundi, West Singhbhum District 27. The respondent no.6 who claims that it was L-2 bidder in respect of work under Item No.1 of W1 has not approached this Court with any grievance. We may also indicate that, and as we have recorded in the order dated 24th January 2023, the respondent no.6 has no locus to contest the matter even though the petitioner-construction company itself has made the respondent no.6 a party in the present proceeding. Now by virtue of the decision taken to cancel the tender notices for W1 and W2 the project has been considerably delayed. It is really in the public interest that the administrative decisions are not arbitrary. It would be rather in the public interest and for maintenance of rule of law that the writ Court steps in and interferes with a decision of the nature which has been taken in the present case. 28. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find serious infirmities in the decision-making process which led to a palpably wrong decision to cancel the tender notices for W1 and W2 and, accordingly, the order contained in the letter dated 24th December 2022 is quashed. The cancellation notice published in the newspaper dated 2nd January 2023 is also quashed. 28. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find serious infirmities in the decision-making process which led to a palpably wrong decision to cancel the tender notices for W1 and W2 and, accordingly, the order contained in the letter dated 24th December 2022 is quashed. The cancellation notice published in the newspaper dated 2nd January 2023 is also quashed. As to the communication dated 24th December 2022, we further direct the authority concerned to issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner-construction company before, if at all, it is proposed to proceed against it for blacklisting. 29. W.P.(C) No. 47 of 2023 is allowed in the aforesaid terms.