IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.235 of 2008 M/S RAI CONSTRUCTION Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Sr.Adv, Mr. Shankar Dayal Singh Mr. Tripurari Sharan Pandey For the State: Mr.P.K.Verma, AAG-XI Dr.Mankeshwar Tiwari, JC to AAG-Xi. 5. 11.8.2008 This is a second round of the petitioner against the order black-listing him. State has appeared and filed counter affidavit. A very short point has again been raised in support of the writ petition. It is submitted with reference to the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules 2007(hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’), that Rule 911(c) provides that the proceedings initiating the process of blacklisting is to be done by issuance of show cause notice by the authority competent to grant registration and it is he who is competent to blacklist a contractor. Against such an order under Rule 11(d), an appeal lies to the Secretary of the Department. In the present case it is stated that notice initiating proceedings was issued by the Secretary of the Department himself and the matter was considered and final order was passed by the Engineer-in-Chief. It was submitted that this action was bad on two counts. Firstly, it deprives the petitioner of chance preferring appeal inasmuch as the proceeding itself having been vitiated by the appellate authority as preferring appeal becomes empty formality. Secondly, proceedings were initiated and power assuming by one authority but the final order issued by another authority being junior to the person. In my view, the writ petition must succeed. It is well 2 established that a person who initiates a proceeding must conclude the same. It is the same authority, who has to consider the matter from the beginning to the end. Undisputedly, a notice was issued by the Secretary of the department assuming jurisdiction and initiated proceeding for blacklisting. The proceedings were ultimately concluded by order of the Engineer-in-Chief. This itself vitiates the order. I may also notice that in the counter affidavit a further damaging fact is admitted. The Engineer- in-Chief purports to have passed the said order with the approval of the Secretary. This has worsen the position because the Secretary, as pointed out above, is the appellate authority. Thus, the entire proceedings have been initiated, taken up and concluded by joint action of the original and the appellate authority. This, in my view, is faulty and cannot be permitted to continue. Thus, the impugned order blacklisting the petitioner on 27.9.2007 is liable to be set aside and is set aside. The writ petition, thus, stands allowed. Md.S. ( Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.)