LAWS(JHAR)-2024-8-56

RANJAN KUMAR Vs. RANCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

Decided On August 12, 2024
RANJAN KUMAR Appellant
V/S
RANCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Ranchi Municipal Corporation.

(2.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 06-01- 2015 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 3901 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the challenge which has been made to the blacklisting of the writ petitioner has been rejected.

(3.) The factual aspects of the case reveal that the writ petitioner/appellant was a registered contractor under the Ranchi Municipal Corporation and pursuant to N.I.T. No. 6056 dtd. 18/12/2012, the writ petitioner had made his offer in respect of Group No. 64 relating to the work of improvement of road from Kanke Road-Military Camp Road Junction to Ratu Road, Durga Mandir. The writ petitioner, being successful in the Notice Inviting Tender, the work was accordingly allotted to him. An agreement being Agreement No. 241 of 2012-13 was executed by the respondent No. 4 in favour of the writ petitioner. Consequent upon entering into an agreement, a Work Order was issued in favour of the writ petitioner with respect to the said work and it is the case of the writ petitioner that immediately on issuance of the work order, he had commenced the work and had completed most of the work, within the specifications, as laid down in the agreement. On 27/5/2013, the writ petitioner was served with a letter No. 540 dated 22-05- 2013 issued by the Respondent No. 4 wherein he was directed to carry out the work in terms of estimate within a period of three days. Subsequent thereto, the respondent had issued a communication as contained in Letter No. 2062 dated 30-05- 2013, whereby and whereunder the registration of the writ petitioner was cancelled and he was placed under blacklist. Being aggrieved with the contents of the letter dtd. 30/5/2013, the writ petitioner had preferred W.P.(C) No. 3901 of 2013 which, however, was dismissed on 6/9/2015 constraining the writ petitioner to prefer the present appeal.