MAHAMAYA CHEMICALS HINOO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved of the order No. 123 dated 25th August, 2006, blacklisting the petitioner and the order dated 9-9-2006 cancelling the work already allotted. Petitioner is a proprietorship concern duly registered with the District Industrial Centre, Ranchi and is engaged in manufacturing and processing of unslacked lime etc. Petitioner participated in the bid and was declared as a successful bidder for supply of the unslacked lime. A formal agreement is said to have been executed, which was in operation till 30th September, 2006. Vide impugned order No. 123 dated 25th August, 2006, issued under order of the Under Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi petitioner has been blacklisted and -has been deprived of all future contracts with a further direction not to allow execution of current work. This blacklisting order has been passed on the ground that the representative of the petitioner entered into the office of the Executive Engineer, Drinking Water & Sanitation Division, Hatia Project, Ranchi without permission and attempted to destroy the papers lying on the table of the officer and also misbehaved with the Executive Engineer, Drinking Water & Sanitation Division, Hatia Project, Ranchi and threatened to kill him. Consequently, another order has been passed dated 9-9-2006, whereby petitioner's order of supply dated 26th June, 2006 for supply of 25 metric tonne of lime stone and 59 metric tonne of Alluminna Ferric has also been cancelled with a further direction not to make any payment to him. Though petitioner has made so many allegations against respondent No. 7, who is the Executive Engineer, Drinking Water & Sanitation Division, Hatia Project, Ranchi and this Officer has been impleaded as a party by name but primarily impugned orders has been assailed being in contravention of the provisions of Bihar Public Works Department Code and violation of principles of natural justice. Reliance is placed upon Clause 18 of the Bihar Public Works Department Code, which reads as under :-

(2.) Mr. M. K. Laik, learned Sr. S.C, I while defending the impugned order has vehemently argued that in the present case, there is no necessity of observing the principles of natural justice as the representative of the petitioner, who is her husband is guilty of misbehaviour as is evident from the impugned order dated 25th August, 2006. He has further relied upon Rules 13 and 14 of Bihar Contractors Registration, Rules, 1996, which reads as under :-

(3.) It is, accordingly, stated that under Rule 14 only contractor of the special category is entitled to notice before blacklisting and petitioner being not a special category contractor, was not entitled to any such notice.