WP(C) 1614/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY The petitioner, who is a Class-1(C) category Contractor under Public Works Depar tment (Roads), Government of Assam by the present petition has challenged the of fice order dated 12th October, 2010 issued by the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads) bl acklisting him with immediate effect on the ground that despite the instruction issued, he continued with the execution of Bituminous Macadam (BM) works on Slab Culvert in front of State Bank of India, Kahilipara amidst heavy rainfall on th e evening of 6th September, 2010. I have heard Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.N. Goswa mi, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though afte r receipt of the show cause notice dated 8th September, 2010 asking the petition er to show cause as to why he should not be blacklisted from the PWD (Roads), he submitted the reply on 13th September, 2010 giving the reason, those have not b een considered by the respondent authorities while passing the impugned order da ted 12th October, 2010. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for t he petitioner that on 6th September, 2010, as per instruction of the departmenta l authorities, the work was stopped by him due to heavy rainfall but due to inte rvention of some persons, his workers had to resume the work for which the petit ioner immediately informed the concerned police station about such incident, who also informed the Executive Engineer accordingly. It has also been submitted th at in fact the work in question has been completed and the completion certificat e has been issued by the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads). The learned counsel, there fore, submits that since the impugned order has been passed without considering the grounds taken in the show cause reply submitted by the petitioner, the said order needs to be interfered with. Though no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed, Mr. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, PWD placing reliance on the para-wise comments furnished by the Chief E ngineer, PWD (Roads), copy of which is placed on record, has submitted that indi fferent attitude of the Contractor led to the loss of reputation of the departme nt and as the Contractor was found to have violated the departmental instruction , the impugned order blacklisting him has been passed. It appears from the materials made available on record of the writ proceeding th at the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads) on 8th September, 2009 issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why he shall not be blacklisted alleging that de spite the departmental instruction issued by the Sectional Officer, he continued to execute the Bituminous Macadam work on the road in question amidst heavy rai nfall. The petitioner, on receipt of the said show cause notice, submitted his reply on 13th September, 2010 intimating the authority that pursuant to the depa rtmental instruction issued, he immediately stopped the work and thereafter, som e unsocial element forced the workers to resume the work and accordingly, he inf ormed the police. It also appears that the police have also submitted a report to the Executive Engineer, City (Roads) in that regard. The Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads) also issued a communication to the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads) givin g details of the happening on 6th September, 2010. The impugned order dated 12th October, 2010 passed by the Chief Engineer, PWD (R oads), however, does not disclose consideration of such ground taken by the peti tioner, apart from the documents, as mentioned hereinabove. That being the position, the impugned order dated 12th October, 2010, which does not disclose any reason, is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Chief Eng ineer, PWD (Roads) for passing a fresh speaking order by taking into account all relevant factors including the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show ca use notice issued. The same shall be done within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today alongwith t he copy of the writ petition and its annexures appended thereto to be filed by t he petitioner before the said authority. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.