JUDGMENT : Deepak Roshan, J. The instant writ application is directed against the order dated 23.08.2024 (Annexure-10) and also the order dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure-13), passed by the 2 nd & 3 rd respondent respectively, whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted for 5 years and its security deposit has also been forfeited. 2. The brief facts of the case which appears from the pleadings and documents annexed with the respective affidavits, is that the petitioner was awarded work order for a detailed survey, designing, drawing, construction of RCC intake well, pump house, water tank etc. on turnkey basis for the purpose of supply of drinking water in the district of Koderma, Jai Nagar, Domchanch under Rural Water Supply Scheme, for which an agreement was also signed on 14.03.2023 between the petitioner and the 5 th respondent. While the work was under progress the 5 th respondent informed vide letter dated 01.06.2024 that the work of Koderma-Domchanch-Jaynagar Rural Water Supply Scheme for construction of water Tower which was allotted to the petitioner collapsed on 01.06.2024. Thereafter, vide letter dated 04.06.2024 a clarification was sought from the petitioner to which he duly replied vide its letter dated 06.06.2024. 3. At this stage itself it is relevant to state that in its letter dated 06.06.2024, the petitioner informed the concerned respondent that he is ready to construct Elevated Service Reservoir again at his own expenses which itself goes to show that though he has replied by stating that no laxity has been committed by him, but his willingness to construct the work again at his own expenses leads to an inference that he has admitted the guilty of laxity and negligence in carrying out the construction coupled with the fact that quality has not been taken care. 4. The record further transpires that the respondents have constituted three members Committee to enquire about the entire incident which occurred on 01.06.2024 and the said Committee made an enquiry on 04.06.2024 in presence of the petitioner and Third Party Inspection Agency (for short TPIA) and submitted its report on 06.06.2024 wherein it has been categorically reported that negligence has been committed in carrying out the construction work of water tower as per the approved design and drawing and further quality has not been taken care of due to which the incident of collapse of the water tower had occurred. In the said Enquiry Report it has been further indicated that the TPIA who has been appointed as 3 rd party inspecting agency to ensure quality of construction work, but unfortunately even after appointment of TPIA, deficiencies of on-site inspection were found which indicates that clause 2.0 scope of work mentioned in the Terms of Reference of the agreement has not been followed and neither the quality of construction has been ensured and the said Enquiry Committee has also held responsible the TPIA for negligence. The said enquiry report has also indicated that the Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer associated with the said work have failed to do proper monitoring/inspection at their level. From records it is also evident that show-cause was asked from TPIA and the concerned Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer departmentally and they were suspended. 5. It further transpires from record that for ascertaining the correctness of the enquiry report and also the clarification submitted by the petitioner, the 3 rd respondent vide its letter dated 21.06.2024 directed the 4 th respondent to provide a report along with the opinion related to the damaged Water Tower. In compliance to the above the 4 th respondent provided a report along with the opinion to the 3 rd respondent and opined that the work has not been done as per the approved design and drawing and the overall quality of the work was not good. 6. From record, it further transpires that the 4 th respondent also requested BIT, Sindri to provide test report of compressive strength of cylindrical core cutting samples of cement concrete and the same was provided and from the construction materials quality test report received from BIT, Sindri it becomes apparent that against the average compressive strength of 25, the average compressive strength of bracing was only 21.44 and in column the average compressive strength was found to be only 10.49 which was much less than the above mentioned required strength. 7. The aforesaid deficiencies committed by the petitioner in the construction was further corroborated by the report given by department of IIT Delhi, IIT Madras and IIT Bombay. All the aforesaid reports collected through various agencies found that enquiry report submitted by the Committee was correct. Thus, the impugned order of blacklisting was issued vide order dated 23.08.2024 as per Rule-10.1.8 and 10.1.15 of the Contractors Registration Rule, 2012. All the aforesaid reports collected through various agencies found that enquiry report submitted by the Committee was correct. Thus, the impugned order of blacklisting was issued vide order dated 23.08.2024 as per Rule-10.1.8 and 10.1.15 of the Contractors Registration Rule, 2012. The record also indicates that action has also been taken against the responsible officer and TPIA. 8. The contention of the petitioner that enquiry report dated 06.06.2024 was not provided to him has no substance, inasmuch as, it is evident from record that he was present before the enquiry committee and never demanded any report. 9. Having regard to the aforesaid admitted factual scenario and the documents annexed it is crystal clear that the impugned order of blacklisting has been issued by the department based upon the reports received from the premier institutes which has corroborated the finding of the “Fact-finding Committee” constituted by the Secretary of the department. It further transpires that proper principle of natural justice has been followed in passing the impugned order and no provision of agreement has been bypassed by the respondent. 10. As stated hereinabove, the very statement made in the first reply by the petitioner that he is ready to construct the entire “Elevated Service Reservoir” again at his own cost leads to a logical inference that he has admitted his guilt with regard to his negligence in carrying out the construction work of water tower as per the approved design and drawing and further quality has not been taken care of due to which the incident of collapse of the water tower had occurred. Moreover, the terms of Reference of the agreement have not been followed by petitioner and neither the quality of construction has been ensured. Further, the work has not been done as per the approved design and drawing and the overall quality of the work was not good. 11. It is also evident from record that the petitioner had filed a writ application earlier against the impugned order of blacklisting and forfeiture of security money; however, the same was withdrawn in view of the fact that he also filed an appeal which was ultimately dismissed. 11. It is also evident from record that the petitioner had filed a writ application earlier against the impugned order of blacklisting and forfeiture of security money; however, the same was withdrawn in view of the fact that he also filed an appeal which was ultimately dismissed. From perusal of the impugned orders passed by the concerned authorities, it is clear that the same does not wants any interference, inasmuch as, both the orders are well reasoned and no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as he was given proper opportunity to file reply to show-cause etc. and in view of violation of Rule No.10.1.15 of the Contractor Registration Rules, 2012, the respondents have rightly blacklisted the petitioner for 5 years and forfeited the security deposit. 12. As a matter of fact, we are conscious about the fact that these contracts are issued for the benefit of public at large and the entire facts clearly indicate the laxity and negligence by the petitioner in carrying out the construction work of water tower as per the approved design and drawing and further quality has not been taken care of due to which the incident of collapse of the water tower had occurred, which is not permissible. 13. As stated hereinabove, neither there is any perversity in the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities, nor the petitioner could show any illegality in the impugned orders; rather, he himself admitted his guilt in a sense that he himself requested the authorities to build the Elevated Service Reservoir again at his own cost. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of this case, the instant writ application is hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs.2 lakh to be paid by the petitioner Company to the Secretary, Jharkhand Legal Services Authority, within a period of six weeks from today. 14. With the above observation and directions, the instant writ application stands disposed of. Pending I.A.s, if any, also stands closed.