Shashi Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13182 of 2023 ====================================================== Shashi Devi Wife of Dadan Singh, Proprietor of Singh Interprises, Resident of Vill-Rampur, P.s. Sasaram (M), Dist-Rohtas.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram. 2.

The Deputy Development Commissioner, Rohtas at Sasaram. 3.

The District Programme Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram. 4.

The District Education Officer, Rohtas, Sasaram. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Smt. Binita Singh, ( SC-28 ) Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, AC to SC-28 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) 20-09-2023 In the instant writ petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(i) For quashing the Office Order dated 16.08.2023 issued under the signature of the District Programme Officer, Primary Education, Rohtas, Sasaram, whereby the District, Programme, Officer, Rohtas, Sasaram has issued order, Blacklisting the petitioner's firm without giving any showcause or without hearing the Petitioner, is without jurisdiction and violation of Principle of Natural Justice.

(ii) For a direction to the Respondent to release the earnest money of the Petitioner.

(iii) For commanding the Respondents to restrain from acting upon the Order dated

2/4 16.08.2023 and follow up.

(iv) For any other relief/reliefs for which the Petitioner is entitled for."

2. It is necessary to reproduce impugned order of blacklisting the petitioner order dated 16.08.2023:-

3/4

3. Perusal of blacklisting order dated 16.08.2023 (Annexure-3) reveals that the petitioner was blacklisted without giving any specific show cause notice and so also, petitioner has been blacklisted for an indefinite period. That apart, it is not a speaking order. On these counts, the petitioner has made out a case in light of the Apex Court's decisions in the case(s) of State Bank of India and Ors. Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and Ors. reported in (2023) 6 SCC 1, UMC Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Food Corporation of India and Anr., reported in (2021) 2 SCC 551 and later decision in the case of Isolators and Isolators Through Its Proprietor Mrs. Sandhya Mishra vs. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. and Anr., reported in 2023 Livelaw (SC) 330 (Para-34) and principles laid down therein.

4. Accordingly, the blacklisting order dated 16.08.2023 (Annexure-3) is set aside. Reserving liberty to the concerned authority to proceed in accordance with law after taking note of the principle laid down by the Apex Court's decisions cited (supra).

5. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

4/4 order. The petitioner shall be given ample opportunity of hearing.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. (P. B. Bajanthri, J) ( Arun Kumar Jha, J) Himanshu/- Balmukund/- U