SHASHI KANT GOPALKA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing memo no. 6010(S) dated 21.08.2015 passed by the respondent no. 2-the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner in the light of the direction of this Court in the matter of blacklisting has been dismissed without deciding the period of blacklisting.

(2.) The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that pursuant to the order passed in a public interest litigation being W.P.(PIL) No. 803 of 2009, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) made a preliminary enquiry vide PE No. 03(A)/09-R. Thereafter, a First Information Report was lodged under Sections 420/467/468/471 r/w Sec. 120-B I PC and Sec. 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Ram Nihora Prasad Singh, the then Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Giridih, M/s. Pabscon and others. In course of investigation, the petitioner was also made accused with an allegation that the petitioner submitted false invoices of bitumen and got payments thereof in respect of a contract for construction of Govindpur-Tundi-Giridih Road vide Agreement No. 3-F2/2005-06. After the investigation, the CBI submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and other accused including the engineers of the Road Construction Department. Thereafter, the respondent no. 3 - Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Registering Authority, Road Construction Department issued show-cause notice vide letter no. 4804(S) dated 16.05.2013 to the petitioner as to why its contractor's registration be not cancelled and the petitioner firm be not put under blacklist. The petitioner filed its reply to the show-cause notice on 31.05.2013. However, the respondent no. 3, vide order contained in memo no. 6119(S) dated 28.06.2013 cancelled the contractor's registration and placed the petitioner under blacklist. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No. 4417 of 2013 against the order dated 28.06.2013 passed by the respondent no. 3. A Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.05.2015 disposed of the said writ petition remanding the matter to the respondent authority for taking a fresh decision on the question of quantum of penalty/period of debarment pursuant to the order of blacklisting with liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal under the rules before the respondent no. 2 - the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. However, the respondent no. 2 passed the impugned order dated 21.08.2015 rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21.08.2015, the petitioner has again approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 21.08.2015 passed by the respondent no. 2 mostly discusses the original order of blacklisting while the said order of blacklisting has already been affirmed by this Court vide order dated 15.05.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4417 of 2013 and the case was remanded on the point of period of blacklisting/quantum of penalty. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 2 has also not considered the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of "M/s. Kulja Industries Limited Vs. Chief Gen. Manager, W. T. Proj., BSNLOrs." reported in AIR 2014 SC 9, though relying on the said ratio, a Bench of this Court, vide order dated 15.05.2015 passed in W.R(C) No. 4417 of 2013 directed the petitioner to prefer appeal before the respondent no. 2. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been blacklisted under Clause 10.1.12 and 10.1.13 of the Jharkhand Road Construction Contractors Registration Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 2008"), whereas Clause 10.1.14 of the said Rules provides for blacklisting of a contractor upon conviction in a criminal case. However, the petitioner has been blacklisted without awaiting the result of the criminal trial. The period of blacklisting/quantum of punishment ought to have been decided by the respondent no. 2, however, the same has not been done ignoring the observation of this Court made in W.R (C) No. 4417 of 2013.