TOPPERS CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD. Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order issued by Memo No. 2693 dated 6.7.2007, issued by the Joint Secretary (Engineering), Water Resources Department, Ranchi (respondent No. 3), whereby, the petitioner has been black -listed on the allegation of its failure to properly execute the work, allotted to it.

(2.) GRIEVANCE of the petitioner is that the impugned order of black -listing is based on no material on record and the same is contrary to the reports of the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Ranchi and the Secretary (Technical), as contained in Annexure -11/A and 17 respectively to this writ petition. Annexure -11/A is the report of the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, on the proposal of black -listing the petitioner. The said report is based on the reports of the concerned officials. The report goes to show that the petitioner had executed the work to the full satisfaction of the authorities. On the basis of its overall performance and the reports of the officials of the department, the Chief Engineer had recommended payment of the amount to the petitioner and opposed the proposal of black -listing. The Secretary (Technical), Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, on the basis of official reports had noted that there was no cogent evidence of any irregularity against the petitioner and the proposal of its black -listing is not justified. Inspite of the said reports and recommendations in favour of the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed arbitrarily, black -listing the petitioner until further orders. It has been submitted that the impugned order is mechanical, contrary lo the reports of the high officials of the department and is wholly without any basis. The same is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel and considered the facts and materials on record. The petitioner has brought on record the reports of the Chief Engineer and the Secretary (Technical), which go to show that the petitioner was not at fault in completing the work within a short period. The work was completed under the pressure of the department. It is an admitted fact that the pressure was put on the petitioner for completing the work within a short span of time inspite of the petitioner's objection. The Chief Engineer and the other officers considering the same were not in agreement with the proposal of black -listing the petitioner and they had made recommendations in favour of the petitioner.