- (1.) MR. V. Shivnath, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the registration of the petitioner has been cancelled and it has been blacklisted by the impugned order dated 21.11.2009 (Annexure-19/A) without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order was procured after it was learnt from the newspaper. He further submitted that the said notice was issued alleging violation of clause-11(viii) of the notification dated 21.08.2002, but the said notification stood repealed by notification dated 11.09.2008. He further submitted that the said notice was issued on the address of his Agent i.e.: "M/s Highway Hydel Projects (Pvt.) Ltd, C/o Himanshu Kumar, s/o Shri Ram Padarath Kumar, 180C, Road No. 04, Ashok Nagar, P.S. Argora, District- Ranchi", which was not received by the petitioner.
(2.) ON the other hand, Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel appearing for the State, submitted that the ground that 2002 notification stood repealed, was taken in the supplementary affidavit and therefore, it could not be replied in the counter-affidavit. He further submitted that the petitioner's case was covered under 2002 notification as the work order was issued on 14.03.2008, i.e. before coming into force of 2008 notification on 10.9.2008. Moreover, the provisions of 2002 and 2008 notifications are more or less similar and that the petitioner knew about the allegations against it. He further submitted that even if the notice was issued to the petitioner's Agent, it will amount to issuance of notice to the petitioner. Mr. Shivnath in reply submitted that the impugned order was passed after coming into force of 2008 notification and therefore, the notice if any could be issued under 2008 notification. It is true that notice to agent is notice to principal, but it is not clear as to why respondents served notice on the agent of the petitioner when the address of the petitioner was available with them.
(3.) IN the circumstances, I am inclined to give one chance of hearing to the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.11.2009 (Annexure-19/A) is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondents. The petitioner is permitted to file show-cause to the notice issued on 21.11.2009 within three weeks from today before the Engineer-in-Chief, Department of Road Construction, Jharkhand, Ranchi (Respondent no. 3) who, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, will pass order thereon as early as possible and preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of the show- cause of the petitioner. If petitioner does not cooperate, ex-parte order can be passed. It is made clear that this order will not prejudice the respective cases of the parties in any other proceedings between them. With these observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed.;