IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14216 of 2011
Rama Kant Singh S/O Late Ram Khelawan Singh R/O M/H
Maharani Nai Godown, P.S. Kotwali, Distt. Gaya.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through Its Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat
Building, Patna.
2. The Secretary To Govt. In The Road Construction Deptt.,
Visheshwaraiya Bhawan, Patna.
3. The Engineer-In-Chief-Cum-Additional-Secretary-Cum-Special
Secretary, Road Construction Deptt., Visheshwaraiya Bhawan,
Patna.
4. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Deptt., Biharsharif.
5. The Executive Engineer, NH Division, Road Construction
Department, Bhagalpur.
...Respondents
----------------------------------
03/ 04.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for
the following reliefs :-
(i) For quashing of the order of blacklisting contained
in memo no. 3392 dated 30.09.2008.
(ii) For quashing of the order of the Respondent
Secretary contained in memo no. 11258(s) dated
2.8.2010 whereby the appeal preferred against the
order of blacklisting was rejected.
(iii) For a direction to the respondents not to act upon
the orders of blacklisting and the appellate order
rejecting the appeal against the order of blacklisting
and allow the petitioner the privilege under the
Enlistment Rules of Contractor, 2007.
(iv) For a direction to the respondents to consider the
case of the petitioner for registration under 2007
Enlistment Rules notwithstanding the order of
blacklisting dated 30.9.2008 and the appellate order
dated 2.8.2010.
2
(v) For appropriate declaration that the entire
proceeding of blacklisting is based on no nest
ground and in the facts and circumstances of the
case it is totally without jurisdiction.
(vi) For a further declaration that the successive order
of blacklisting despite quashing of the same by this
Court is mala fide and colourable exercise of
power.
(vii) For any other relief or consequential reliefs to
which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the
facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner was
a contractor and was assigned the work of widening and
strengthening Ekangarsarai-Telhara Road under Naxal Yojna and
F2 Agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the
Executive Engineer, according to which the liability to maintain the
road was only for six months.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the
instance of the respondents, Laheri P.S. Case No. 88 of 2006
(Special Case No. 30/2006) was instituted against the petitioner and
others and charge-sheet was also submitted and cognizance was
taken for offences punishable under sections 406, 409, 420, 120B of
the Indian Penal Code and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act by the Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna.
However, the said proceeding was challenged by the petitioner in
Cr. Misc. No. 35189 of 2006, which was allowed by a Bench of this
Court on 21.02.2008 and the entire criminal proceeding was
quashed.
3
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that
earlier the petitioner’s firm was blacklisted by the authorities
concerned, which was challenged by the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.
15851 of 2007, which was also allowed by a Bench of this Court
vide order dated 22.04.2008 and the impugned order of blacklisting
the petitioner’s firm was set aside.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner avers that again
on the same grounds, order dated 26.09.2008 (Annexure 9) was
passed by the authorities blacklisting the petitioner’s firm. Against
the said order, the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 11213 of 2008,
which was permitted to be withdrawn vide order dated 23.04.2010
(Annexure 10) for enabling the petitioner to first exhaust the
statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order. He also
states that thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal before the
appellate authority, namely, the Secretary of the Road Construction
Department, but the said authority, without considering the points
taken by the petitioner and the materials on record, passed the
impugned order dated 29.07.2010 (Annexure 12).
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondents submits that from the impugned order of the appellate
authority dated 29.07.2010 (Annexure 12), it is quite apparent that
the authority was satisfied and only thereafter the order was passed
and a first information report was lodged and in that case
investigation is still going on. Learned counsel for the respondents
also submits that in view of the complicated facts of the case, a
counter-affidavit is required and seeks four weeks’ time for filing
4
counter-affidavit.
8. In the said circumstances, let this case be listed on
13.12.2011 under the heading `Admission’ in regular course.
9. During the pendency of this writ petition, operation
of impugned orders dated 20/30.09.2008 (Annexure 9) and
29.07.2010 (Annexure 12) passed by the authorities concerned shall
remain stayed.
( S. N. Hussain, J.)
MPS/