Disposed

Lalan Shukla v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC11 Sept 2012CWJC/11994/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court directed the petitioner, Lalan Shukla, to file an appeal against his blacklisting order to the Principal Secretary. The court ordered the respondents to process and pay the pending bills expected from the executed works while the interim stay order remains in force.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioner to file appeal before Principal Secretary; interim order of 14.7.2007 to continue; respondents to process and pay petitioner's pending bill.

Lalan Shukla Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11994 of 2006

¶3

====================================================== Lalan Shukla, .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Rural Engineering Organization, Government of Bihar. 3. Engineer-in-chief, Rural Engineering Organization, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Chief Enginner, Rural Engineering Organization, Governmentof Bihar, Patna. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Sasaram Circle, Rural Engineering Organization, Sasaram, Rohtas. 6. Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Works Division, Sasara,, Rohtas. 7. The District Magistrate, Rohtas 8. Divisional Forest Officer, Rohtas, Sasaram. 9. Assistant Mining Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram. .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey Mr. Anshuman Mr. Ramanuj Tiwary Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwary For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Aag7) Mr. A.K.Singh(Spl.Pp)Mines ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶4

Patna High Court CWJC No.11994 of 2006 (5) dt.11-09-2012

¶5

2 / 2

¶6

5 11-09-2012

¶7

By order dated 14.2.2007 this Court has stayed the operation of the order, contained in Annexure-25, bearing Memo No. 5059 dated 11.1.2007 with I.A. No. 664 of 2007, by which petitioner was blacklisted.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after that, he has been awarded many works and he has also executed and completed the same to the satisfaction of the respondents. He submits that the bill of his present work is also pending.

¶9

Since Rules provides for an appeal before the Principal Secretary against the order of the Blacklisting, this Court considers it appropriate that the petitioner should file an appeal before the Principle Secretary against the order of blacklisting, who shall examine the stand of the petitioner that delay was caused in execution of the work due to the reason beyond his control. He shall also examine and consider the stand taken by the petitioner in Memo of appeal and decide the appeal on merits without going into the question of limitation, if any, as the matter was pending in this Court since long. Till the appeal of the petitioner is decided, interim order passed by a Bench of this Court on 14.7.2007 in this case shall continue. The bill of petitioner will also be examined and processed by respondents and admitted amount shall be paid to him.

¶10

Writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.

¶11

(Jayanandan Singh, J)

¶12

Sudha/-

Lalan Shukla v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalan Shukla v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s All India Pest Control Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Gautam Prasad Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Dharmendra Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Ors.

Mahesh Sah and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Chandra Shekhar Choubey and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.