IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1419 of 2010 (Arising out of CWJC No. 17825 of 2009) 1. Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Sone Bhawan, 5th Floor, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna through its Managing Director 2. The Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Sone Bhawan, 5th Floor, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna 3. Chief of Procurement, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd Sone Bhawan, 5th Floor, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna 4. The District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Madhubani(wrongly typed in impugned order as District Magistrate in Place of District Manager)………………………Appellants Versus 1. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, S/O Sri Rameshwar Prasad Singh, R/O Sihma, P.S.Matihani, Distt-Begusarai 2. The State Of Bihar through District Magistrate, Madhubani 3. The District Magistrate, Madhubani 4. The District Supply Officer, Madhubani 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Madhubani……………………Respondents For the appellants : Mr. R.S. Pradhan, Sr. Advocate Mr. A.N. Rai, Advocate ----------- 3. 25.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the order of the Writ Court whereby two writ petitions preferred by respondent No. 1 have been allowed. As a result of the common order under appeal dated 14th July, 2010 the order of blacklisting the writ petitioner as a Transport and Handling Agent for Madhubani district on account of alleged poor performance during flood relief-2007 has been quashed and the other order challenged through subsequent writ petition has also been set aside by ordering that the writ petitioners’ name should be again included in the list of Transport and Handling Agents prepared later for 2 Darbhanga district. From the discussions made by the Writ Court it is evident that the allegations were in respect of an unusual situation arising due to floods and did not relate to regular work requiring transportation and handling of food- grains of the appellant Corporation. The Writ Court has noticed that delay in uplifting of the food-grains and transportation in course of flood relief was on account of various reasons such as poor road conditions, requirement to procure smaller and studier vehicles which could go on the poor roads and the requirement of fixing higher rate of transportation as recommended by the Corporation which was never done. In the final analysis the Writ Court has found that there was contributory negligence of state machinery and clearly an attempt was made to put the blame on the private machinery, the writ petitioner, to make him an scape goat to cover up inefficiency and lapses on the part of officials of the State, particularly in decision making and implementing process. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that while rejecting the review petition of the writ petitioner, the authorities have pointed out that he was not efficient even in 3 normal transportation work done in earlier period. We find that in the impugned order of blacklisting the reason given is not poor performance for any other period except in relation to flood relief work of 2007. Those allegations and the factual situation have been considered by the Writ Court with great care and in details. We find no good reason to interfere with the views of the Writ Court. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Mkc/ (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)