Umesh Prasad Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4397 of 2018 ====================================================== Umesh Prasad Yadav Son of late Rajendra Prasad Yadav Resident of VillageBaguwaha, P.S. Raniganj, District Araria, Authorised Transport and Handling Agent B.S.F.C. Araria.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through the Secretary Food and Civil Supply Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2.

The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation ltd. through its Managing Director, Bihar, Patn 3.

The Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Bihar, Patna.

4.

The Deputy Chief Transport , Bihar State Food Corporation Ltd. Bihar, Patna.

5.

The District Magistrate, Araria.

6.

The District Supply Officer, Araria.

7.

The District Manager, Bihar State Food Corporation Ltd. Araria. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Kumar Ravish, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Bijoy Kr. Sinha, AC to AAG 5 For BSFC :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) Date : 24-03-2023 Heard learned counsels for the respective parties.

2. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief/reliefs:

"That this is an application for issuance of Writ or Writs, Order or Orders, Direction or

Patna High Court CWJC No.4397 of 2018 dt.24-03-2023 2/3 Directions for quashing the order contained in letter no.3254 dated 06.04.2017 issued by Managing Director Food and Civil Supply Corporation Ltd, Bihar Patna whereby and whereunder letter no. 733 dated 25.01.2017 had been decided and the order of punishment contained in letter no. 3502 dated 16.03.2016 has been contained."

3. Short question for consideration in the present petition is while proposing with a show cause notice for blacklisting the petitioner, the concerned authority proposed as to why petitioner shall not be blacklisted for five years. Thereafter, while passing impugned order, proceeded to blacklist the petitioner for indefinite period. Such action of the concerned authority in blacklisting the petitioner for indefinite period is contrary to Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in the case of M/s Chauhan Builders, Raibareli vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., SLP(C) No. 32840 of 2018 (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 694).

4. Further, if five years blacklisting period is taken with reference to show cause notice, that period has already spent its force as on today. In the light of these facts and circumstances, impugned action of indefinite period is set aside while converting the indefinite period of blacklisting to that of five years as proposed in the show cause notice dated 07.03.2017.

Patna High Court CWJC No.4397 of 2018 dt.24-03-2023 3/3

5. With the above observation, writ petition stands disposed of.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J) (Arun Kumar Jha, J) GAURAV S./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date Transmission Date NA