Arjun Yadav vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 15 June, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     I.A. No. 1328 of 2011
                              In
                   W.P.(C) No. 482 of 2011                       
Arjun Yadav                                      ...... Petitioner 
                                 Versus 
The State of Jharkhand & others                  ...... Respondents 
                                                    ­­­­­­­­­
CORAM:  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N.  PATEL  
                                       ­­­­­­­­­
For the Petitioner          : Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate  
For the State                 : J.C. to A.G.
                                ­­­ 
              th
 06/Dated: 15    June, 2011
                           

1.

The   present   interlocutory   application   has   been   preferred   by   the 
original   petitioner,   for   getting   stay   against   the   agreement   dated   29th 
March, 2011 entered into, by the Government. The work for which this 
agreement  was   entered   into,   has  already   been   assigned  to   the   present 
petitioner   on   2nd  December,   2010   after   following   tender   process   for 
auction  and the  petitioner  was  found  suitable  candidate  from  amongst 
those, who have applied for getting the work in question. The work was 
given to the petitioner, in December, 2010 and it was cancelled in January, 
2011 i.e. within a period of one month by order at Annexure­4 to the 
memo of the present petition, which is absolutely a non­speaking order 
and,   without   giving   any   opportunity   to   the   petitioner   of   being   heard, 
absolutely an arbitrary decision has been taken by the respondent­State so 
as to give the contract, in question, to their favourable person. 

2. Counsel   for   the   State   is   seeking   time   to   file   a   detail   counter 
affidavit.   Counsel   for   the   State   submitted   that   though   one   counter 
affidavit   has   already   been   filed,   but,   it   is   not   effectively   filed   and 
therefore, they are seeking time to file a detail counter affidavit because 
neither   the   reasons   have   been   stated   in   the   impugned   order   at 
Annexure­4, nor any reason have been stated in the counter affidavit filed 
by the State for cancellation of the agreement and therefore, there is a 
need to file a detail counter affidavit. 

3. Time, as prayed for, is granted.

4. Affidavit   shall   be   filed   by   the   Secretary,   Building   Construction 
Department, on or before the next date of hearing, failing which, he shall 
remain personally present before this Court, on the next date of hearing 
at 10.30 a.m.

2.

5. Meanwhile, I hereby, stay the further execution of the agreement 
dated 29th March, 2011 till the next date of hearing. 

6. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1328 of 2011 stands disposed of. 

7. Post. W.P.(C) No. 482 of 2011 on 4th July, 2011.

       (D.N. Patel, J)
 VK