Kamlesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18321 of 2022 ====================================================== Kamlesh Yadav, aged about 47 years, Male, Son of Jagdish Yadav Resident of Village- Kurmawan, P.O.- Kurmawan, P.S.- Barachatti, District- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Planning and Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Chief Engineer, Local Area Engineering Organization, Vishweshwariya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

3.

The Chief Engineer (Work K Management), Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna, Vishweshwariya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4.

The Superintending Engineer, Local Area Engineering Organization, Magadh Division, Work Division, Gaya.

5.

The Executive Engineer, Local Area Engineering Organization, Work Division, Gaya.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Anjani Kumar (Aag4) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) Date : 04-04-2023 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 an appropriate writ or writs for quashing Letter No. 1500 dated 22.7.2022 by which the registration of the petitioner has been Class IV contractor of Road Construction Department (RCD)

Patna High Court CWJC No.18321 of 2022 dt.04-04-2023 2/2 has been recommended to be put in the Blacklist by respondent No. 2, and also for quashing letter no. 4781(2) dated 22.8.2022 by which the registration of the petitioner has been black listed and he has been debarred from participating in the Tender by respondent no. 3 for any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled under the law."

3. Perusal of the records, it is evident that only against proposal for blacklisting, the petitioner has invoked remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, therefore, it is premature.

4. It is also contended that such proposal is without notice. In this regard, the concerned authority is hereby directed to take note of, before taking any further action, whether petitioner is required to be heard in the matter or not?

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

(P. B. Bajanthri, J) (Arun Kumar Jha, J) GAURAV S./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 07.04.2023 Transmission Date NA