Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

, it was alleged or found that the petitioner was responsible for such defective design, non utility of the work, but in the show cause (Annexure-4) dated 15.03.2018 the petitioner has been saddled Patna High Court CWJC No.13668 of 2018 dt. 14-08-2018 with the liability of the defective design, incomplete work and revenue loss for which the show cause for blacklisting has been issued. He urges that under the Bihar Contractors Registration Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the „Rules, 2007‟) blacklisting and suspension has been defined under Rule 11 and has 10 clauses (i) to

After hearing the parties and the rival submissions, I am in agreement with the counsel for the petitioner as the work order given to the petitioner was abandoned midway due to faulty design for which the enquiry report dated 29.08.2017 which is part of the show Patna High Court CWJC No.13668 of 2018 dt. 14-08-2018 cause dated 08.05.2018 (Annexure-6) has in express terms opined that the earlier original design was defective as it did not take into consideration the level of the depth of the river link channel and deviation which has to be re-designed as per actual site verification and the Regional Officers were responsible for such faulty designs, hence action be taken against those Regional Officers. Nowhere has the petitioner been found at fault, none of the clauses of Rule 11 of the Contractors Rule, 2007 could have been attracted for blacklisting the petitioner as held in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors. (supra). Notice to show cause for blacklisting could be challenged as it amounted to infringement of fundamental right of the petitioner as held in K.K. Kochunni Vs. State of Madras (supra) and Union of India & Anr. Vs. Vicco Laboratories (supra). The contention of the State counsel that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have informed about the faulty design and the level was not part of the show cause against blacklisting and the show cause notice could not be improved by way of notice as held in Rashmi Metaliks Limited and Anr. Vs. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and Ors. (supra). The enquiry report in no uncertain terms speaks of any delay or fault by the petitioner or of violation of any of the clauses of the agreement by the petitioner which is the basis for the show cause against Patna High Court CWJC No.13668 of 2018 dt. 14-08-2018 blacklisting. Hence, the show cause notice 15.03.2018 as contained in Annexure-4 as well as the show cause notice dated 08.05.2018 as contained in Annexure-6 are quashed.