- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 1.10.2005 passed by respondent no.3 in Memo No.3708 Ranchi dated 3.10.2005 (Annexure-7), has preferred this writ petition whereby the petitioner's registration dated 2.9.2002 has been cancelled under the provisions of Jharkhand Enlistment of Contractors' Rule 2001and further the petitioner-firm has been blacklisted. It is submitted on the part of the petitioner that he had applied for registration in the name of the firm Yadav Construction constituted by a deed of partnership executed on 30th April,2001 and upon consideration of the case of the petitioner he was granted registration for Class IB under Jharkhand Enlistment Contractors' Rules, 2001 vide memo No.3982 Ranchi dated 2.9.2002 (Annexure 3). However, the petitioner was surprised to receive a show cause notice dated 29.4.2005 (Annexure 4) contained in memo No.1338 Ranchi dated 29.4.2005 issued by the respondent no.3 asking him to reply as to why his registration be not cancelled as he had suppressed the fact that one of the partners Arun Kumar had died on 29th June,2001, while making application for his registration before the Department. It is submitted that as per the show cause notice itself, it appears that it is misconceived as it is alleged therein that on account of death of one of the partners, the partnership firm was dissolved which was suppressed while making application before the respondents. By referring partnership deed (Annexure 1) dated 30th April,2001, it is submitted that the partnership firm constituted four partners and on the death of one of the partners, the partnership firm could not be treated as dissolved, as there is no such condition in the partnership deed, moreover the partnership continued thereafter. However, it is further submitted that the partnership firm was reconstituted by introducing the legal heirs of the deceased partner again on 15 th July,2001. In any case on the death of one of the partners the partnership firm was very much in existence and the allegation in the show cause, as sated above, was misconceived. The petitioner duly replied the aforesaid show cause notice by his representation as contained in Annexure 5 dated 16.5.2005. However, the respondents have proceeded to issue order of cancellation of not only the registration of the petitioner but also the petitioner has been blacklisted by the same impugned order dated Ist October,2005 as contained in memo No.3708 dated 3.10.2005 (Annexure 7) and that too till further orders.
(3.) ON the basis of the aforesaid fact, it is submitted that the order of registration of the petitioner-firm is bad in law on the ground alleged in the show cause and the impugned order as also blacklisting the petitioner is highly unreasonable and without any justification. Moreover, the order of blacklisting passed in such a manner, affects the fundamental right to carry on business of any person/citizen like the petitioner and the order of the respondents casts stigma against the petitioner-firm. The respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit trying to justify the impugned order by asserting that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that one of the partners has died and obtained registration from the Department, which was contrary to the Rules i.e. Jharkhand Enlistment of Contractors' Rules,2001. However, he was given a show cause notice and thereafter his registration was cancelled and order of blacklisting has been passed, which is impugned in the writ petition.;