LALAN SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR; SECRETARY, RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANIZATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR; ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANIZATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR; CHIEF ENGINEER, RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANIZATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR; SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, SASARAM C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-Court appeal arises from the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.09.2012 passed in CWJC No 11994 of 2006 (Lalan Shukla Versus- State of Bihar & Others). The appellant is the writ petitioner. The writ petition was filed, challenging Memo No 5059 dated 11.01.2007 by which consequent to cancellation of the petitioner's agreement in respect of construction of road under Prime Minister's Gramin Sadak Yojna (for brevity, PMGSY), the appellant has been blacklisted by order of the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar. The learned Single Judge was of the view that under the Enlistment of Contract's Rules 2007, there is a provision of appeal against the order of blacklisting which should have been availed of, and, accordingly, directed the writ petitioner to prefer appeal.

(2.) It may be noted that the writ petition was filed in the year, 2006 and upon the order of blacklisting being issued during pendency of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge had granted stay of the aforesaid order on 14.02.2007 itself. It was submitted before the learned Single Judge that consequent to the stay granted, the writ petitioner was awarded several other works from time to time and all have been successfully completed, but the learned Single Judge was of the view that as appellate provisions were there, the writ petitioner should prefer appeal, and, with that direction, disposed of the writ petition. The writ petitioner has, thus, filed this intra-Court appeal.

(3.) We have heard Shri Tej Bahadur Singh, learned Senior Counsel in support of the appeal and Shri Brajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the State and deem it proper, with their consent, to dispose of this matter at this stage itself, as in our view, no useful purpose would be served keeping this appeal pending. We have perused the pleadings including the counter affidavit and rejoinder filed to the writ proceedings.