IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.20067 of 2010 M/S MUSKAN ENTERPRISES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR NAMELY ASHOK KUMR GUPTA, S/O LATE GANGA PD. GUPTA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA WARD NO.4, KISHUNPUR, ROAD SUPAUL, DISTT. SUPAUL…..PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER, REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS DEPARTMENT BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COMMISSIONER, KOSHI DIVISION SAHARSA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM COLLECTOR, SUPAUL. 5. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, SUPAUL. ……..RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : Mr. Raghvendra Kr. Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr.Sourendra Pandey, A.C. to S.C. 23. ----------- 04/ 21.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 31.12.2007 (Annexure-1) passed by District Magistrate, Supaul (respondent no.4) blacklisting the petitioner, cancelling the agreement and work order and forfeiting the security money deposited by the petitioner and also challenging order dated 08.03.2010 (Annexure-2) passed by Commissioner, Koshi Division Saharsa (respondent no.3) dismissing Miscellaneous Appeal No.02 of 2008 filed by the petitioner and affirming the order of District Magistrate. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenges the said order stating that the entire problem had arisen due to office order of Commissioner of Supaul (Revenue Department) dated 10.10.2007 (Anneuxre-5) by which the - 2 - work was enhanced in addition to what was given in the original work order without enhancing the remuneration of the petitioner and furthermore office order dated 18.02.2008 (Annexure-9) issued by the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms giving higher rates for the said purpose without considering the claim of petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents contests the claim of petitioner and submits that all the steps had to be taken by the authorities concerned due to non-completion of work which was of prime importance and the progress should not be allowed to be affected by lethargy of any person, including the petitioner. 5. From the arguments of learned counsel for the parties as well as the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the petitioner could not start the work within the stipulated time and he himself had expressed his inability due to certain limitations and had demanded return of his materials. Hence, it is apparent that the clauses of agreement were not fulfilled and in spite of reminders the work could not be started and thus the Collector of Supaul had no option but to cancel the agreement and forfeit the security deposit as per the terms of the agreement. 6. It is also apparent that against the said order the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Appeal No.02 of 2008 but it transpires from order dated 08.03.2010 (Anneuxre-2) that on 18 dates the petitioner was absent after taking two - 3 - adjournments and the appeal was also barred by the law of limitation and accordingly it was dismissed. 7. In the said circumstances, the authorities concerned were quite justified in cancelling the agreement and work order in favour of the petitioner and forfeiting the security deposit. However, blacklisting the petitioner is too harsh a punishment in the facts and circumstances of this case, specially when the petitioner had himself earlier expressed his limitations and had requested for return of the articles. 8. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of affirming the impugned orders of the authorities concerned except that part of the orders directing to black list the petitioner, which is quashed. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)