1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8024 OF 2009 Malikarjun Mazdoor Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Jalna through its Chairman Shri. Nandkumar s/o Gopalrao Jabange, & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Co-operation and Textile Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents ... Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for petitioners. Mr.S.K. Tambe, A.G.P.for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. U.B. Bondar, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4. ... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 10TH MARCH, 2010 PER COURT : Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. This petition takes exception to the 2 communication dated 07-10-2009 sent by the District Deputy Registrar to the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Jalna. The petitioners have approached this Court on the assertion that the communication is in the nature of order of blacklisting the petitioners from allotment of any further work. However, considering the reply affidavit filed, we are in agreement with the stand taken by the learned A.G.P. that this petition is premature, in as much as communication sent by the District Deputy Registrar dated 07-10-2009 is not a decision as such, but only recommendation made to the Executive Engineer to proceed against the petitioners to take the action of blacklisting for the reason stated in the said communication. There is nothing on record to indicate that the Executive Engineer has thereafter examined the matter any further. Moreover, on plain reading of the scheme articulated in the G.R. dated 20-09-2006 which is produced by the respondents alongwith reply affidavit, the decision of 3 blacklisting is expected to be taken by the State Government on the basis of recommendation of the Chief Engineer, if any. That position emerges from clause 3.4 read with 3.3 of the Scheme. 3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that as per clause 3, such action can be taken by the Registering Officer, who is the Assistant Registrar and not by the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. That clause cannot be read in isolation. There is specific clause in the scheme in the form of 3.4 dealing with the cases of action of blacklisting. Reading the said clause 3 alongwith clause 3.4 which specifies the authority competent to pass final order, as aforesaid, it is the State Government who would be taking final decision in the matter after receiving recommendation from the Chief Engineer, if any. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that 4 acting on the communication dated 07-10-2009 the said authority has stopped allotting any work to the petitioner societies without there being any final order of blacklisting. To assuage this grievance, in our considered opinion, it would be appropriate and in the interest of justice, to direct the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Aurangabad to examine the claim of the petitioners herein expeditiously and take appropriate decision, after giving fair opportunity to the petitioners to rebut prima facie opinion recorded by the District Deputy Registrar in the impugned communication dated 07-10-2009. In other words, the concerned authority, who is in the first place, expected to make recommendation for blacklisting or for that matter final authority who would take the decision of blacklisting will examine the stand of the petitioners on its own merits uninfluenced by the opinion of the District Deputy Registrar contained in the communication dated 07-10-2009. All questions in that behalf 5 are left open. The petitioners shall appear in the office of the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. Aurangabad on 18-03-2010 at 11-00 a.m. on which date, the Chief Engineer may conclude the process of giving opportunity to the petitioners or specify some other date which will be suitable to him while ensuring that his opinion should be forwarded to the State Government on or before 01-04-2010. In the event, he intends to recommend the action of blacklisting against the petitioners. On the other hand, if he decides the claim of the petitioners in favour of the petitioners, there would be no question of petitioners suffering consequences of blacklisting in absence of any such order. In that case, the District Deputy Registrar shall ensure that the petitioners will have to be treated on par with other such Contractors and provided with work in future. In the event, the recommendations of the Chief Engineer is adverse to the petitioners, the State Government may take appropriate decision by following due 6 process of law as expeditiously as possible and in any case, not later than 30-04-2010. The petitioners waived notice for appearance before the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. Aurangabad on 18-03-2010 as aforesaid. 5. The petition is disposed of on the above terms. ( S.S. SHINDE, J. ) ( A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.) sut/MAR10/wp8024.09