IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2290 of 2008 KANCHAN KUMAR PANDEY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 23.9.2008 Petitioner is a registered Class II contractor with the Building Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar. He is aggrieved by order of the Collector-cum-District Magistrate,Rohtas, as contained in Annexure 6, by which the Collector has blacklisted the petitioner and directed forfeiture of security on the ground that petitioner having been allotted the work, work order has been issued, he has not started the work. A short point has been raised by the aforesaid order, as contained in Annexure 6 similar order was passed in relation to two other persons .One of them being Anand Abhishek. Petitioner states that the said Anand Abhishek had challenged this order before this Court and this Court by order dated 24.1.2008 passed in CWJC No. 12409 of 2006 set aside the order in so far as that petitioner is concerned. This Court held that the Collector has no authority to intervene in the matter because as per statutory rules, the person who is registered is the person, who is competent to initiate and blacklist a contractor. Further forfeiture of security is an incident which arises out of the agreement. Agreement was between the petitioner and the Executive Engineer and the Collector has nothing to do in the matter. Collector may be the highest revenue authority in the district but that does not give him inherent power to intervene in matters which are not under his 2 command. In that view of the matter the writ petition is allowed and Annexure 6 being the order of the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Rohtas, vide memo no. 469,dated 22.7.2006 , is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. SINGH (Navaniti Prasad Singh , J.)