Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: constructive knowledge in M/S Shakti Construction vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 8 December, 2015Matching Fragments
10. This Court is of the view that having regard to the nature of the order proposed to be passed, it is not necessary to consider and discuss the detailed submissions on merits advanced by the respective parties with respect to the numerous aspects of the case.
11. It is evident from a bare reading of the impugned order of blacklisting dated 30.07.2015 that the same has relied upon fresh material by way of the letter dated 27.07.2015, and thus also letter no. 1961 dated 12.04.2003 enclosed therewith, without however first confronting the petitioner with the same nor granting any opportunity to it in that regard. Even if the letter dated 12.04.2003 be accepted to have been in the petitioner's knowledge, the same was in some other context. Nothing prevented the authorities from having regard to the said letter dated 27.07.2015 in the show cause notice, when the petitioner would have had Patna High Court CWJC No.13511 of 2015 dt.08-12-2015 ample opportunity to address its objections to the same in the specific context of blacklisting. The same not having been done, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not suffered any prejudice and there is a clear violation of Natural Justice. This Court further finds that the appellate order dated 04.09.2015 also suffers from similar vice in relying upon the letter no. 1517 (Mo) dated 01.09.2015 containing fresh recommendation of the Minor Irrigation Department without however supplying a copy thereof to the petitioner nor granting any opportunity in that regard. This Court also does not find any merit in the submissions of the respondents that the petitioner has made any material suppression of fact inasmuch as the respondents have merely implied that the petitioner ought to have been aware of the pendency of the two criminal cases but however nothing concrete has been placed to indicate that the petitioner had in fact any knowledge of the same. The principle of 'constructive knowledge' cannot be applied in the present context as sought to be invoked on behalf of the Respondent No. 7.