IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.6548 OF 2007 SATYENDRA NARAYAN SINGH, SON OF SHRI RAMANAND SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – PURANCHAK, BARHITOLA, GULZARBAGH, P.S. – ALAMGANJ, DISTRICT- PATNA ………………………. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. THE COMMISSIONER – CUM – SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, VISHWASRIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 3. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF CUM – SPECIAL SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, VISHWASRIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-CUM-CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, VISHWASRIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, SOUTH BIHAR SECTION, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, VISHWASRIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 6. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, CENTRAL ROAD CIRCLE, PATNA 7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, PATNA CITY ROAD DIVISION, PATNA – 07. 8. ……………………… RESPONDENTS FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. SHRI ANIL KUMAR UPADHAYAY, ADVOCATE 2. SHRI L. B. SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE: 1. SATISH KUMAR SINHA, A.C. TO AAG-4 ----------- 03. 05.03.2010 Petitioner was a duly enlisted Class II Contractor. His registration number was 3771 of 2002. The present writ application challenges the order dated 05.01.2007, which is Annexure – 6 to the writ application. By virtue of the said decision, the petitioner has been 2 black-listed. The author of the said impugned order is stated to be the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar. The black-listing of the petitioner has been done in exercise of power of what is known as Bihar Contractor Enlistment Rules, 1996. The submission of the learned counsel, representing the petitioner, is that this order of black-listing is required to be quashed, since it has been passed in breach of the laid down procedure, as prescribed in Clause 14 of the said Rule. The Rule is question empowers the same authority to take action of black-listing, who has authority to grant registration. Not only this, the said authority is also supposed to take opinion of three other members before an order of civil consequence can be passed against the Contractor. In the present case, notice had been issued to the petitioner to show cause by the Deputy Secretary-cum-Chief Vigilance Officer and the final order, which is Annexure-6, has been passed by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary of the Department. Learned Counsel for the petitioner brings to the notice a decision dated 01.12.2006, which has been passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3712 of 2006. In the said decision, in a similar fact and circumstance, the order of black-listing came to be quashed, because the Court was of the opinion that the respondents 3 have themselves failed to follow the rules and procedures provided and specified under Rule 14 of the Enlistment Rule. In the present case, since the order has been passed by the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, for similar reasons as C.W.J.C. No. 3712 of 2006, the impugned order requires to be interfered with. Since the procedure laid down under Rule 14 of the Enlistment Rules has not been followed Annexure-6, dated 05.01.2007 stands quashed. The writ application is allowed. skm (Ajay Kumar Tripathi)