KAKA & COMPANY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order of the State of Bihar dated 17.1.2006 (Annexure -4) by which he has been intimated that as the Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand by its order dated 24.11.2003 had blacklisted the petitioner, the licence of the petitioner as a registered contractor with the Government of Bihar could not be renewed. The petitioner has consequentially then challenged the order of the Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand dated 24.11.2003 (Annexure -5) on the ground that the said order blacklisting the petitioner was issued without any prior notice in this regard and was not communicated to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the said order (Annexure -5) being a non -speaking order was non est in eye of law and could not form the basis for any action to be taken by the Bihar State Government.

(2.) NOTICES were issued to the State of Jharkhand who was made a party to this application. State of Jharkhand has appeared and filed its counter affidavit. On behalf of State of Jharkhand, it is stated that by Memo No. 2370 dated 24.5.02, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner pointing out that certain papers that he filed alongwith his tender application appeared to be forged and the petitioner was required to show cause as to why necessary action be not taken in this regard. This, it is submitted, was sufficient compliance of principles of natural justice and was an effective show cause notice (Annexure -6). A preliminary objection has been raised as to the maintainability of the writ application before this Court on the ground that no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court with regard to the second prayer that is setting aside the order blacklisting the petitioner and, as such, in terms of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, the writ application is not maintainable in that regards.

(3.) COMING to the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ application, the counsel for the State of Jharkhand submits that though the writ petition may be maintainable as against the State of Bihar, it is not maintainable in this Court as against the State of Jharkhand and the relief as prayed for in that regard cannot be granted by this Court. In this case, I may refer to Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India: