IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8100 of 2007 SHIVJEE SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. N.K.Agrawal, Sr. Advocate M./s N.K.Malhotra, Binod Kumar Sinha For the State : Dr. Kumar Amitesh Chandra, AC of Govt. 10 31.7.2009 The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order as contained in memo no.4941 dated 11.12.2006 (Annexure-4), issued by the District Magistrate, respondent no.3 by which the Executive Engineer, Building Construction Division, Muzaffarpur has been instructed to lodge a F.I.R. and black list the petitioner and to direct him to rectify the irregularities at his own cost. He also prays for quashing the subsequent letter no.5657 dated 18.6.2007 issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, Building Construction Department, respondent no.5 directing the Executive Engineer to take steps against the petitioner in pursuance of the direction of the District Magistrate. The petitioner also seeks quashing the letter no.1 dated 20.6.2007 issued by the Executive Engineer, respondent no.7 by which F.I.R. has been lodged against M/s Maa Sherawali construction of which the petitioner is one of the partners. The petitioner got certain tender works which is detailed in paragraph 5 of the writ petition. In course of construction the petitioner faced hurdles from the local M.L.A. Raju Singh and his goons including Amresh Singh which is mentioned in letter dated 8.8.2006 and 10.9.2006, as contained in Annexure-2 and 2/A. The complaint of the petitioner was registered as Sahebganj P.S. Case - 2 - No.125 of 2006 under sections 384, 353 of the Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. It is alleged that as the local M.L.A. restrained the petitioner from going on with the construction work, he exhorted pressure on respondent no.3 to restrain him from doing the construction work and to get a F.I.R. lodged. The Collector instituted a team under order dated 25.10.2006 comprising of Assistant Collector, Special Division, Muzaffarpur and the Executive Engineer, Building Construction Division, Muzaffarpur. The team indicted the work of petitioner in its report which was received on 9.12.2006. Thereafter the Collector vide his memo no.4941 dated 11.12.2006 issued direction for lodging a F.I.R. as well as for black listing the petitioner. He also directed the petitioner to rectify the irregularities in the construction work without any extra expenses. Thereafter the petitioner approached the Commissioner, respondent no.2 to have his work tested and to get an enquiry conducted by the superior officials. On receipt of letter dated 13.12.2006, as contained in Annexure-5, the Commissioner directed the Superintending Engineer, respondent no.6 to conduct an enquiry. The petitioner states that the Superintending Engineer got the bricks and mortar used in the aforesaid construction tested by Testing & Research Institute, R.C.D., Bihar, Patna and M.I.T., Muzaffarpur. After receipt of the testing report and other enquiry, the Superintending Engineer vide his letter no.139 dated 22.3.2007 found the work of the petitioner as well as the quality of the materials used by him to be satisfactory. The report of the Superintending Engineer is - 3 - annexed as Annexure-7. Thereafter necessary memo was issued by respondent no.6 under the direction of respondent no.2 to respondent nos.3 and 7 for necessary payment as would be evident from Annexure-8. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the report of the Superintending Engineer virtually exonerated him, still the District Magistrate, respondent no.3 issued letter no.2708 dated 12.6.2007 to the Executive Engineer, respondent no.7 for taking action in terms of his earlier memo no.4941 dated 11.2.2006, Annexure-4. Consequently the Engineer-in-Chief, respondent no.5 vide his letter no. 5657 dated 18.6.2007 directed the Executive Engineer, respondent no.7 to take action as directed by the District Magistrate, respondent no.3. Thereafter the Executive Engineer lodged the F.I.R. against the petitioner as contained in Annexure-11. It is relevant to state that the Engineer-in-Chief vide his letter dated 18.6.2007 as contained in Annexure-10 directed the Executive Engineer to rescind the agreement and seek fresh tender after preparing the estimate at the risk and cost of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State submits that the programme in question was the District programme which was being executed by the Building Construction Department. He further submits that on receipt of public complaint the Collector got a preliminary enquiry first done by the S.D.O. West, Muzaffarpur and then by a team constituted on 20.10.2006. The report of the committee was received on 9.12.2006 which shows various irregularities. Thereafter the Collector by his - 4 - order dated 11.12.2006 passed the impugned order including the order for registering an F.I.R.; and for taking steps for black listing the petitioner, as further directing the petitioner to rectify the irregularities at his own cost. Learned counsel refers to Annexures-5 and 5/A of the Review petition from perusal of which it would appear that the Executive Engineer after noticing the enquiry report of the Committee and after considering the show cause of the petitioner had black listed him under rule 13(2) of the Bihar Contractors and Enlistment Rules, 2007. He states that the Superintending Engineer has merely stated that the work done by the petitioner can be termed satisfactory. The Superintending Engineer has not categorically stated that the work was satisfactory. It would appear from the records that different enquiries have been made in respect of the work done by the petitioner. The enquiry committee constituted by the Collector on 25.10.2006 found the work to be deficient, whereas, the enquiry conducted by the Superintending Engineer found the same as satisfactory. In view of such conflicting enquiry reports, this court is of the view that if the petitioner files a representation before the Secretary, Building Construction Department, respondent no.4, he will dispose of the same by a speaking order. However, it would be open to the Secretary, Building Construction Department to direct for any other enquiry if he so finds it expedient. So far as black listing of the petitioner is concerned, the - 5 - KHAN Bihar Contractors and Enlistment Rules, 2007 provides for statutory appeal. It would be open to the petitioner to prefer statutory appeal before the Appellate authority. In case such an appeal is filed, the Appellate Authority will consider the aspect of limitation sympathetically as the petitioner was pursuing his remedy before this court and would dispose of the appeal within three months from the date of its filing. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. (S.P.Singh,J)