IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10531 of 2010 MITHILESH KUMAR S/O LATE ATUL NARAYAN SINGH R/O VILL.- BHAGWANPUR RATI, P.S. BHAGWANPUR, P.O. BALUKA RAM, DISTT.- VAISHALI …………… Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, 1ST FLOOR, UDYOG BHAWAN, EAST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA-4 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, 1ST FLOOR UDYOG BHAWAN, EAST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA-4 …………… Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: M/s. Ashok Kr. Choudhary & Prakash Kumar, Advocates For the State : Mr. Ashok Kr. Dubey, AC to AAG 9 For the BIADA: Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate. ----------- 2. 13.7.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 20.11.2009 passed by the Managing Director, BIADA by which the representation dated 17.9.2009 filed by the petitioner has been rejected, and further for quashing of the letter dated 19.5.2009 of the Executive Engineer, BIADA by which the agreement between the petitioner and the BIADA has been cancelled, security money has 2 been seized and the petitioner has been blacklisted as contractor as also for quashing of the orders dated 10.3.2008 and 29.7.2008 by which the penalties of Rs. 50,000/- (25,000/- each) have been imposed upon the petitioner and also for a direction to the BIADA to refund the security money. This is the second round of litigation before this Court by the petitioner. Earlier he had approached this Court by filing CWJC No. 11375/2009 against the order dated 19.5.2009 passed by the Executive Engineer, BIADA which was disposed of with an observation that if the petitioner files representation before the Managing Director along with a copy of the order of the Court he shall dispose of the same within a period of six weeks and pending disposal thereof, no coercive steps were to be taken. Thereafter the petitioner filed his representation dated 17.9.2009 before the Managing Director from which it does not appear that any ground has been taken by him except to pray that the earlier orders should be recalled and he should be removed from the blacklisting. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner has not stated any ground in support of his claim in his representation, 3 by the impugned order dated 20.11.2009, the Managing Director has considered that under the agreement dated 23.1.2008, the petitioner has not completed the work within three months and a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on 10.3.2008 since the work was not in accordance with the specifications provided in the agreement and again a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed by order dated 29.7.2008 as the pace of work was very slow and another penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed by order dated 1.4.2009 of the BIADA. It was also noted that the petitioner used to keep his mobile phone switched off and transferred his work to another person and despite the repeated directions the pace of work was kept slow for which show cause was asked on 2.4.2009 to which he did not reply. On failure to complete the work even within a year after the date of the agreement, a show cause was again issued on 14.5.2009 as to why his agreement should not be cancelled and he should not be put in the blacklist but the petitioner neither replied to the show cause nor brought any progress in his work and accordingly the said order dated 19.5.2009 has been passed. On a consideration of 4 the aforesaid detailed facts, the representation of the petitioner was rejected and it was further noted that his final bill has been paid after checking the measurement book. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not responsible for the slow pace of work as hindrance was created by the local people and 500 ft was dug at the place of work. It is further submitted by learned counsel that no detailed show cause notice was issued to the petitioner which he could have properly replied and thereafter the order could have been passed and for the said reasons the impugned order dated 20.11.2009 passed by the Managing Director, BIADA should be set aside and the authorities should be directed to issue a detailed show cause and pass order only after considering the same. Learned counsel for the BIADA takes the stand stating that the petitioner himself did not file detailed representation and the order has been passed by the Managing Director considering every aspect of the matter. On a consideration of the facts and 5 circumstances, this Court does not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. On the earlier occasion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner had been disposed of permitting the petitioner to file a representation before the Managing Director of BIADA who had to dispose of the said representation. At this stage it does not appear that the petitioner could persuade this Court that a detailed show cause should be issued to him for which he should be given opportunity to reply. Thus, it is not open to the petitioner to take any such plea that BIADA should issue further show cause in the matter. From a perusal of the representation filed by the petitioner, it is evident that absolutely no fact and ground has been mentioned in the said representation in support of his stand. On the other hand, the order dated 20.11.2009 passed by the Managing Director takes into account all aspects of the matter. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any non- application of mind while passing the order dated 20.11.2009 or any denial of opportunity to the petitioner. If the petitioner has not availed of the opportunity which 6 was granted to him by this Court while disposing of the earlier writ petition, the petitioner alone should be blamed. The impugned order gives cogent reasons and this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the same. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. S. Pandey ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)