SUNIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS
LAWS(JHAR)-2017-8-199
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on August 10,2017

SUNIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Jharkhand And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Amitav K. Gupta, J. - (1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to press the above interlocutory application. Accordingly, I.A. No.8379 of 2016 stands dismissed as not pressed. W.P.(C) No.4403 of 2016 The petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate order/ direction for setting aside the order dated 09.01.2015 (Annexure-7).
(2.) Learned counsel has alleged that the aforesaid order has not been passed in accordance to Rule 10.7 of the Contractor's Registration Rules, 2012 of the Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Government of Jharkhand. It is submitted that the petitioner was blacklisted by order dated 13.10.2014 (Annexure-4), whereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal on 18.10.2014 (Annexure-5) before the Secretary of the Department as prescribed by Rule-10.7. It is urged that it would be evident from Annexure-7, that the order has been passed by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Government of Jharkhand, who is not the competent authority. Moreover, in Annexure-7, it has been mentioned that the review application is dismissed whereas Rule 10.7 prescribes that the appeal is to be decided by the Secretary of the Department. That the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing moreover the order has been passed by an authority not competent under Rule 10.7.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of B. C. Biyani Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., passed in Civil Appeal No.6632 of 2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No.3274 of 2016) and submitted that the Apex Court while referring to the decisions rendered in earlier judgment, has categorically held that debarment cannot be permanent. That debarment should depend upon the nature of offence committed by the contractor. In the said judgment it has been observed that since the petitioner has suffered the penalty of blacklisting for more than three years, hence the blacklisting was confined for the said period of three years only.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.