Sanjay Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC18 Apr 2024CWJC/5781/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Blacklisting; ten-year blacklisting order; Rural Works Department Bihar; alternate remedy; appellate authority delay; appeal not listed; show-cause notice vague; Article 226 Constitution of India; time-bound disposal of appeal; writ petition closed without merits; Patna High Court; Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5781 of 2024; K. Vinod Chandran CJ; Harish Kumar J.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent (Appellate Authority) to dispose of the appeal against the blacklisting order within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties; writ petition closed without merits observations. ¶¶21

Sanjay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Article 226 should be rejected because the petitioner has already availed the alternate remedy of an appeal against the blacklisting order. +1 more

¶¶20

Court's answer

Though inclined to reject the writ petition since an alternate remedy had been availed, the Court found that remedy non-efficacious because the appeal filed on 20.07.2023 had not been listed till then, and accordingly directed the 2nd respondent (the Appellate Authority) to dispose of the matter within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶¶21

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is closed without any observation on the merits, all contentions being left to be agitated before the Appellate Authority.

¶¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5781 of 2024, Patna High Court, decided 18-04-2024) challenging a blacklisting order for a term of ten years issued by the Rural Works Department authorities: the petitioner had already preferred an appeal on 20.07.2023 contending that the show-cause notice was vague, but the appeal remained unlisted. The Court, while inclined to reject the writ petition for want of maintainability under Article 226 in view of the available alternate remedy, held the remedy non-efficacious owing to the delay and directed the 2nd respondent (the Appellate Authority) to dispose of the appeal within three months of receipt of the certified copy of the order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. The writ petition was closed without any observation on the merits, which were left to be agitated before the Appellate Authority. Bench: K. Vinod Chandran, CJ (author) and Harish Kumar, J.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5781 of 2024

¶2

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

¶3

Sanjay Kumar Son of Ram Yash Ray, Resident of mohallah- Sankat Mochan Nagar, Near New Police Line Area, P.s.- Arrah, District- Bhojpur, Bihar.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through The Principal Secretary, Rural works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar Patna.

¶10

The Chief Engineer-1, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶11

The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Ara, District- Bhojpur.

¶12

The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division Ara, District- Bhojpur.

¶13

The Executive Engineer, Office of Chief Engineer-1, Rural Works Department, Patna.

¶14

... ... Respondent/s

¶15

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P.N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate Mr. Shivam, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Government Advocate 10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶16

Date : 18-04-2024

¶17

The petitioner is aggrieved with the blacklisting order, which blacklisting is also for a term of ten years. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that an appeal was filed from the order on 20.07.2023 and the

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.5781 of 2024 dt.18-04-2024 2/2

¶19

specific contention taken was that the show-cause notice was vague.

¶20

Considering the fact that an alternate remedy has been availed, we were inclined to reject the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the learned counsel points out that this is not an efficacious remedy since an appeal was filed on 20.07.2023 and it has not been listed till now.

¶21

In the above circumstances, we direct the 2^nd respondent, the Appellate Authority to dispose of the matter at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶22

The writ petition is closed without any observation on the merits which is left to be agitated before the Appellate Authority.

¶23

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)

¶24

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶25

aditya/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date	20.04.2024.
Transmission Date

Sanjay Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manikant Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

M/s Ashutosh Enterprises Vs The Union of India

Narayan Kumar Vs The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

Sushil Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

M/s. Johnson Enterprises Vs The Union of India

M/s Shanti Construction Vs The State of Bihar