IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1498 of 2009 UDAY SHANKAR PRASAD son of late Prayag Narayan resident of village & P.O. Sarbahdi, P.S. Manpur, District Nalanda, at present Mohalla Udantpuri, Garhper, P.O. & P.S. Biharsharif, District Nalanda Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Rural Works Department, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum- Special Secretary, Rural Works Department, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer-4 (Headquarter), Rural Works Department, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 5. The Chief Engineer -1, Rural Works Department,Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 6. The Joint Secretary, Rural Works Department, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 7. The Chief Engineer- 3, Rural Works Department, Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 8. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Biharsharif (Nalanda). 9. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Hilsa (Nalanda). ----------- 2 01/12/2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the State in respect of the appeal as well as petition for interim orders being I.A. No. 7636 of 2009. There is no dispute that even if the impugned - 2 - action has the effect of creating temporary debarment upon the appellant in the matter of obtaining further contract under the State, it has an adverse effect and such action should not have been taken without giving an opportunity of hearing. Admittedly no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant/writ petitioner before including his name in the list of 147 contractors who have been debarred from participating in any future contract till existing contract work is completed by the contractor. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that such power is available in the State and its authorities and the contractors including the appellant were made aware of such power and, hence, there was no need of giving further notice when name of the appellant was included in the list of defaulting contractors. In our view, knowledge regarding availability of power cannot amount to a notice to the parties likely to be affected that such power is about to be exercised. At the stage of likelihood of exercise of such power having adverse effect, in our view, a notice for giving opportunity of hearing or representation was required. - 3 - Since no opportunity of hearing or representation was given to the petitioner, hence, we direct the respondents not to treat the petitioner as debarred from participating in any future contract for a period of six weeks from today. During this period, the petitioner will be obliged to file his show cause before the concerned authorities i.e. respondent no. 4, the Chief Engineer (Headquarter). Such representation or show cause must be filed within a period of two weeks from today. Thereafter the respondents must take a decision in accordance with law after considering the representation or show cause within a further period of four weeks. After six weeks the case of the petitioner shall be governed by further orders which may be passed by the competent authority. If the decision is not to blacklist him, his name shall be permanently removed from the contractors debarred or else his name will continue in that list till he completes the work entrusted to him at the present. If the contention of the appellant is correct that he has already completed the contract work entrusted to him at the present, this fact shall be kept in mind by the authority while taking a decision in the matter. - 4 - With the above observation/direction, this Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of. AMIN (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)