IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17546 of 2008 SHRI PRAKASH son of late Janak Prasad Singh, resident of Laxmi Narayan Nagar, Bela, District-Muzaffarpur. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Principal Secretary, Rural Work Department, Govt. of Bihar,Patna. 3. Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar,Patna. 4. Engineer-in-Chief –cum- Additional Commissioner –cum- Special Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar,Patna. 5. Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization Works Division,Darbhanga. ----------- 2 27.1.2009 The petitioner has filed this writ petition impugning Annexure 4 ,being order of the Engineer-in-Chief-cum- Additional Commissioner cum- Special Secretary of the Rural Development Department, dated 14.2.2008, by which the petitioner has been blacklisted for allegedly delay in completion of work allotted to him in the year 2002-03. In the said notice, it is stated that on 10.5.2006, petitioner was asked to show cause against the blacklisting by the Chief Engineer vide his letter no. 1254 dated 1.5.06 to which the petitioner had not responded. The Committee of the Rural Development Department then met in its meeting on 18.12.2007 and discussed the matter and thereafter the impugned order was passed on 14.2.2008. Petitioner states that right from 2006 when the notice is allegedly to have been sent to him, he was never reminded and fresh contract continuously was given to him which he is presently also working. He states that he had never received any such notice. Learned counsel for the State pointed out that as apparent from the impugned order, there has been a delay in execution 2 of contract by the petitioner and as such blacklisting him was not wrong. In my view, the writ petition can be disposed of at this stage itself, as keeping it will serve no purpose. Undisputedly, as per the impugned order, as contained in Annexure 4, itself there has been no response from the petitioner. Petitioner on coming to know of the said order immediately filed a representation in which he has categorically stated that he has not been given any notice. Thus, the impugned order and the petitioner’s stand on the same footing, there was no effective response. In my view, as blacklisting entail serious civil consequence for the petitioner. Petitioner is entitled to be heard and petitioner’s case is to be heard before such a drastic decision is taken. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order, as contained in Annexure 4, and direct the appropriate competent authority to issue the notice to the petitioner afresh , which the petitioner would respond within four weeks of receipt thereof and thereafter the competent authority would, after hearing the parties ,take a decision by a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner at the earliest. With the above observation and direction this writ petition stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to learned counsel for the State. SINGH (Navaniti Pd. Singh, J.)