ASHOK KUMAR SAHAY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the office Order No. 45 -B dated 4.11.1995 and Memo No. 2046, dated 4.11.1995 and further for a direction to the respondents to pay the security money and Registration fee which was deposited by the petitioner against the tender. By the aforesaid order dated 4.11.1995 as contained in Annexure -6 to the writ application beside recovery of the amount, the respondent has blacklisted the petitioner.

(3.) FROM perusal of the counter affidavit it appears that petitioner took delivery order of Kendu leaves and deposited a sum of Rs. 31,431.53 by way of first installment and thereafter on 8.5.1995 he deposited a sum of Rs. 67,000/ -. Petitioner filed application on 11.8.1995 for extension of time for further three months for lifting of the Kendu leaves. As noticed above, petitioners case is that he was neither informed not he has any knowledge. But from perusal of Annexure -F to the counter affidavit it appears that petitioner executed an extension agreement on 14.8.1995 by which period was extended upto 15.10.1995. The said extension agreement was signed by the petitioner and witnessed by one Mukhdeo Singh. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the case of the petitioner that he had no knowledge about the extension of the agreement cannot be believed. Petitioner in reply to the counter affidavit has stated that as a matter of fact duly filed up request form and agreement duly signed accompanied with signature of witness used to be sent to the General Manager for acceptance. Prima facie it shall be presumed that petitioner signed the agreement whereby the period was extended upto October, 1995 unless otherwise proved by cogent evidence. In exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not supposed to disbelieve the facts appearing on the record and probe into question whether such document was in fact executed or not.