Disposed

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

Patna HC10 Sept 2012CWJC/16780/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses the writ application against the blacklisting order without substantive reconsideration. The court directs the petitioner to the Public Works Tribunal for a merits-based decision and stays the blacklisting order to allow tender participation during the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The blacklisting order is treated as kept in abeyance for tender purposes; the petitioner is directed to approach the Public Works Tribunal for payment of dues and decision on appeal.

M/s All India Pest Control Vs The State Of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16780 of 2012

¶2

======================================================

¶3

M/S All India Pest Control, Jamal Road, Patna a proprietorship firm having its office at Jamal Road, near Post office Gali, Patna, through its Proprietor Sri Pramod Kumar Pandey, son of Sri Sarjug Prasad Pandey, resident of Jamal Road, Near post office Gali, Patna.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

1. The Principal Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Joint Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The Engineer-in-Chief, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶10

The Resident Commissioner, Bihar Bhawan, New Delhi.

¶11

The Resident Engineer, Bihar Bhawan, New Delhi.

¶12

The Internal Financial Advisor-cum-Accounts Officer, Bihar Bhawan, New Delhi.

¶13

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajkishore Prasad, Adv., Mr. Tej Bahadur Roy, Adv. and Mr.Amrendra Narain, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Madhukar Mishra, AC to GA-9 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶14

2 10-09-2012

¶15

This is the 2^nd round of litigation petitioner has been dragged into because of total non-application of his mind by the Engineer-in-Chief, Building Construction Department. Earlier he had passed order for blacklisting the petitioner, which was found by this Court as totally based on the opinion of the Principal Secretary of the Department. Hence, his order was quashed by this Court by order dated 09.07.2012 passed in CWJC No.7666 of 2012 (Annexure-22) and he was directed to “apply his own

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.16780 of 2012 (2) dt.10-09-2012

¶17

2 / 3

¶18

independent mind.” Petitioner thereafter appeared before him and requested that his earlier show cause may be considered on merits. But the Engineer-in-Chief has passed fresh orders, as impugned in this writ application, contained in memo no.6236 („Bha‟) dated 07.08.2012 (Annexure-25), wherein after recording the orders of the authorities and the operative order of this Court, he has just recorded that the petitioner has not produced any new fact or material in evidence before him.

¶19

This Court had earlier found that he had not applied his independent mind to the facts and materials produced by the petitioner. Hence, he was required to “apply his own independent mind.” But it is unfortunate that again the Engineer-in-Chief has not applied his own independent mind and has again passed order for placing the petitioner under blacklist with mere observation that petitioner has not produced any fresh materials. It is apparent that materials produced by the petitioner earlier were never considered by him independently. It appears that, in view of the order of the Principal Secretary of the Department, that action for blacklisting the petitioner should be taken by March, 2012, failing which responsibility shall be fixed, the Engineer-in-Chief is in fear of being held responsible if he decides otherwise.

¶20

In the circumstances, even if order is set aside on the

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.16780 of 2012 (2) dt.10-09-2012

¶22

3 / 3

¶23

ground of non-application of mind by him, no useful purpose will be served by remitting the matter back to him. As such the writ application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Public Works Tribunal which is directed to consider the appeal of the petitioner on merits in accordance with law and decide the same as early as possible.

¶24

During the pendency of the appeal of the petitioner before the Tribunal it is directed that it shall not be debarred from participating in any tender process on the basis of the said order of the Engineer-in-Chief dated 07.08.2012 and the said order, for the purposes of allowing the petitioner in the tender process, shall be treated as kept in abeyance. Petitioner will also be at liberty to move the Tribunal for payment of its admitted dues during the pendency of the appeal.

¶25

Arvind/-

¶26

(Jayanandan Singh, J)

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s All India Pest Control 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Bhawani Traders and Suppliers Vs The National Highways Authority Of India and Ors.

Manoj Kumar Singh Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Smt. Kanchan Singh Vs The Syndicate Bank Through Its Regional Manager, Patna and Ors.

Gautam Prasad Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Dharmendra Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Sarfuddin Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.