Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) BY way of instant interlocutory application, petitioner prays for fixing a date for early hearing of the matter also for stay of the impugned order. According to the petitioner, it has been blacklisted and its registration has been cancelled by the impugned order vide Annexure -7 dated 24.7.2012 under the signature of respondent No. 3, Engineer -in -Chief cum Registration Officer, Road Construction Department alleging violation of the Jharkhand Road Construction Contractor Registration Rules, 2008 as also on account of allegation that a C.B.I. case has been registered against petitioner -company.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has purportedly been passed on the basis of F.I.R. registered against two directors of the petitioner - company for allegedly furnishing forged bitumen invoices. It is further submitted that in the C.B.I., case the petitioner - company has not been charge -sheeted. Out of the 2 directors, who have been made accused in the C.B.I. case, one Pawan Kumar Singh has died in a road accident and death certificate is annexed as Annexure -IA/2 to the I.A. another director namely Dilip Kumar Singh has been removed from the company, thereafter. It is further submitted that the alleged violation of the Jharkhand Road Construction Contractor Registration Rules, 2008 are not made out against the petitioner and the petitioner is being made to suffer because it is not able to undertake business with any other organization, State or its instrumentality because of blacklisting, which amounts to violation of fundamental right to carry out their trade, business and occupation. Learned A.G. appearing on behalf of the State sought to justify the impugned order on the ground that there are specific violation of Jharkhand Road Construction Contractor Registration Rules, 2008 as a result of which not only petitioner - company is blacklisted but its registration has also been cancelled. Apart from that a C.B.I., case has been registered against the directors of the petitioner - company.
(3.) HAVING heard the counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that impugned order of blacklisting shall not operate adversely to the petitioner in any tender which it intends to participate invited by other State or its instrumentality or any organization during the pendency of the writ application.;