IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7469 of 2009 Mritunjay Narayan, son of Late Sukhdeo Narayan, Mohalla E/51, P.C.Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna – petitioner. Vs. 1. Bihar State Tourism Dev. Corporation Limited through its Chairman cum Managing Director, Virchand Patel Path, Patna. 2. The Chairman cum Managing Director, Bihar State Tourism Dev. Corporation Limited, Virchand Patel Path, Patna. 3. The General Manager, Bihar State Tourism Dev. Corporation Limited, Virchand Patel Path, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer, Bihar State Tourism Dev. Corporation Limited, Virchand Patel Path, Patna. 5. The Executive Engineer, Bihar State Tourism Dev. Corporation Limited, Virchand Patel Path, Patna – respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Verma, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Manish Sahay,Advocate. For the respondents : Mr.Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Tej Pratap Singh, Advocate. 3 27.7.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation Limited. The petitioner was entrusted with the work of renovation of the Ist floor of Hotel Tathagat Vihar at Rajgir (Nalanda) by an work order, dated 21.8.2007. The work was allegedly completed on 30.11.2007. Vide letter, dated 13.9.2008 certain defects were pointed out in the work done by the petitioner after a period of eleven months. The petitioner was asked to remove the defects within fifteen days by the aforesaid letter. Thereafter the impugned order (Annexure 4) has been issued by respondent Chairman cum Managing Director of the Corporation. On perusal of annexure 4 it appears that the Chairman cum Managing Director has referred to letter no. 1107/2008, dated 13.9.2008 which has stated that certain 2 defects were found in the renovation work done by the petitioner and he was asked to remove the defects in the construction work within a period of fifteen days. It has been stated in the impugned order that the petitioner filed a show cause stating that the work was according to the agreement. However, the show cause was rejected and thereafter the petitioner removed the defects pointed out by the Corporation. It is alleged that IF the defects had not been pointed out and IF the petitioner had not removed the defects, he MAY have caused a loss to the Corporation. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the petitioner has been black listed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is apparent from Annexure 4 itself that before passing the order, dated 24.6.2009 no opportunity was given to the petitioner to give any explanation or to file a show cause. It is submitted that the reasons are based on supposition that the petitioner MAY have caused loss to the Corporation subject to certain conditions. In the opinion of the court no order of black listing could have been passed against the petitioner without following the provisions of section 11(Kha) of Bihar Thekedari Nibandhan Niyamawali, 2007 i.e. following the principles of natural justice. I accordingly quash the order, dated 24.6.2009 and remand the matter to the Chairman cum Managing 3 Director of the Corporation to comply with the provisions of section 11(kha) before passing any order and to consider the show cause and pass a reasoned order thereafter. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)