IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18740 of 2008 SCIENCE PALACE, having its office Beside Woodland Show Room, Saraiyaganj, Muzaffarpur, through its Proprietor, Natwar Prasad, son of Sri madanLal, resident of Mohalla-m Saraiyaganj, P.S. Town,District- Muzaffarpur. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR . 2. The Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Agriculture Director, Agriculture Department,Govt. of Bihar,Patna. 4. The Deputy Director, Agriculture (Seeds Analysis),Govt. of Bihar,Patna. ----------- 3 16.3.2009 Petitioner had responded to a notice inviting tender dated 28.3.2008 for purchase of scientific equipments instalments etc. required for Seed Testing Laboratory in Bihar. The notice inviting tender was issued by the Director of Agriculture, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. The petitioner being a supplier of scientific goods, filed tender in respect of certain goods therein. In support of certain equipments, he gave a certificate from a manufacturer of Ambala firm. His technical bid was found in order and consequently his financial bid was opened. Authorities had some suspicion about the authenticity of the certificate issued by the Ambala firm and accordingly they constituted a two members team to enquire and submit a report. They visited Ambala and submitted a report. The report has disclosed that Ambala firm manufactured only two items. It also noted that Ambala firm accepted having issued certificate in favour of the petitioner. Report having been received, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner (Annexure 7) as to why action be not taken against the petitioner for having submitted certificate from the Ambala firm 2 when actually it was not a manufacturer of all scientific equipments tendered by the petitioner . In the said show cause, there was no indication as to what was the action proposed to be taken. Petitioner replied stating that the certificate was duly for the purchase of two goods which was found to be manufactured by the Ambala firm. The Ambala firm had accepted having issued the certificate in favour of the petitioner. As such the petitioner had done nothing wrong. Not being satisfied with the show cause filed by the petitioner (Annexure 10),the Director of Agriculture has not only cancelled the tender of the petitioner but blacklisted the petitioner as well. It is against this action (Annexure 10) the petitioner has come to this Court. Petitioner submits that the order of blacklisting not being preceded by a specific show cause in this regard, cannot be sustained. Secondly, the order, as contained in Annexure 10, is a cryptic non speaking order. Petitioner has made a further prayer for canceling the re-tender and permitting him to participate therein. So far as last submission is concerned with regard to re- tender, all that this Court now can say is that the re-tender having been finalized and supplies made pursuant thereto, no relief can be granted to the petitioner .Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the fact that tender having been finalized at three times the rates quoted by the petitioner and almost twice the rate at which last year equipments were purchased. This has caused substantial loss to the State. Against this matter it is for the petitioner to take up with the concerned authority including ,if so advised, with 3 the Cabinet Vigilance but that cannot be a subject matter of writ proceeding before this Court. Coming with regard to blacklisting, it is made clear that no show cause in this respect was ever issued to the petitioner. The notice, as appended to Annexure 7 does not indicate as to what steps were to be taken. Petitioner filed his show cause, notice having been issued, the tender itself was cancelled. Petitioner in its show cause gave explanation. The impugned order of blacklisting, as contained in Annexure 10, does not show any consideration whatsoever of the show cause as filed by the petitioner. It is a totally non speaking order. Thus this Court finds that neither any show cause against blacklisting was ever issued to the petitioner nor the impugned order, blacklisting the petitioner discloses any reason whatsoever. On these counts, the impugned order and the action of blacklisting the petitioner cannot be sustained. Annexure 10, being letter no. 583, dated 10th September, 2008 issued under the signature of Director of Agriculture, Govt. of Bihar,Patna, thus cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed and is quashed as such. With the aforesaid observation and direction this writ petition stands allowed. SINGH (Navaniti Pd. Singh, J.)