Nalanda Engicon Private Limited v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9616 of 2021 ====================================================== Nalanda Engicon Private Limited through its Authorised Signatory Bibeka nand Kumar, Male aged About 43 Years, Son of Late Sachidanand Prasad having its Registered Office at 14, Shri Ram Tower, West of Jalan Shop, Main Road, Kankarbagh, P.S.-Kankarbagh, District-Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Bihar urban Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Patna through its Managing Director.

4.

The Managing Director, Bihar Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Patna.

5.

The Chief Engineer, Design, Planning and Monitoring, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Shekhar Singh, Advocate Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate Ms. Shruti Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Ravindra Priyadarshi, Advocate Mr. Suresh Kumar, AC to GP 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH) 21-12-2021 Regard may be had to the observations made by this Court in the order dated 23.11.2021 passed in this case. Learned counsel for the BUIDCO has produced before us an order dated 15.12.2021 passed by the Principal Secretary-cum-Appellate Authority, Urban Development and

Patna High Court CWJC No.9616 of 2021(6) dt.21-12-2021 2/2 Housing Department, Government of Bihar, whereby the matter relating to blacklisting of the petitioner for two years by an order passed by the Chief Engineer, Design, Planning and Monitoring of the department, has been remanded back to him for passing an order afresh. The Appellate Authority has noted in the impugned order, dated 15.12.2021, that the original authority failed to pass a detailed reasoned order while blacklisting the petitioner. Further, till final order is passed by the authority, the Appellate Authority has ordered that the order of blacklisting shall remain stayed.

In such view of the matter, in our opinion, the petitioner's grievance has been substantially redressed with the passing of the appellate order in as much as the impugned order dated 10.11.2020 of blacklisting is no more in force till a final order is passed by the original authority.

This application stands disposed of accordingly. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) ( Madhuresh Prasad, J) SUMIT/- U