IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11662 of 2009 SURAJ NIRMAN PRIVATE LIMITED, Company Registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Suraj Complex Dak Bungalow, Bailey Road, Patna, through its Director Kanhaiya Kumar Singh, Son of Late Ramnandan Singh, R/o- Suraj Complex Dak Bungalow, Bailey Road, Patna :--- Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal Secretary cum Commissioner, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Engineer in Chief-cum-Additional Cum Special Secretary, Road Construction, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Executive Engineer, National Highway Division no.2, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Executive Engineer, Flying Squad Division, Patna :-- Respondents. ----------- 3. 06.10.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order bearing Memo No. 8348 (s) dated 28.07.2009 (Annexure-2) passed by the Principal Secretary of the Road Construction Department, whereunder learned Principal Secretary has rejected the appeal of the petitioner filed against the original order bearing Memo No. 2282 dated 12.6.2008 (Annexure-1) black-listing the petitioner from undertaking further contract works in the department. Impugned appellate order dated 28.07.2009, Annexure-2 has been passed in compliance of the direction of this Court contained in order no.6 dated 31.3.2009 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 16556 of 2008, Annexure-15. Perusal of Annexure,15, however, indicates that the appellate authority (Principal Secretary) was directed to consider the appeal against the original order dated 12.6.2008, Annexure-1 after serving the copy of the report of the Flying Squad and the 3rd Party Quality Control on the petitioner as also after giving him an opportunity of being heard. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that neither he has been given opportunity of being heard nor the copy of the report of the Flying Squad and 3rd Party Quality Control has been served on the petitioner before passing of the impugned appellate order. 3. Aforesaid submission is accepted by the learned counsel for the State Sri P.K.Verma, A.A.G.-11 in part as according to him from the records - 2 - maintained in the Department it does not appear that petitioner was given opportunity of being heard before the appellate order was passed. Sri Verma, however, contends that the copy of the two reports was served on the petitioner and receipt to that effect is available in the file. 4. Since the counsel for the State having perused the records` has fairly confirmed the position that petitioner was not given opportunity of being heard before the appellate order was passed, appreciating such stand taken by the learned counsel for the State, I Set aside the appellate order and remit back the matter to the Secretary of the department who is also holding the charge of Principal Secretary to reconsider the appeal filed against the original order after providing the petitioner opportunity of being heard by intimating the petitioner the date of hearing at his registered address through registered post. Having perused the file if the learned Secretary is satisfied that the copy of the two reports have not been actually furnished to the petitioner then learned Secretary should ensure service of the copy of the two reports on him and thereafter the matter be heard as early as possible in any case within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the appellate order should be passed within the time indicated in this order. In case petitioner does not cooperate in the proceedings then the Secretary will proceed ex parte. It goes without saying that during hearing petitioner is at liberty to raise all the points which he has raised in the writ petition. 5. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)