Tufail Ahmad Khan vs The State Of Bihar And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 1035 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6897 of 2018
     ======================================================

Tufail Ahmad Khan, Son of late Safi Ahmad Khan, Resident of Village- Belbanwa, P.O. and P.S.- Motihari Town, District-East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State Of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Chief Engineer, Uttar Bihar Sub-Division, Building Construction and Awas Department, Patna.

3. The Superintending Engineer, Building Construction Department Circle, Motihari, East Champaran.

4. The Executive Engineer, Building Construction Division, Motihari, East Champaran.

5. The Engineer-in-Chief-Cum-Deputy-Cum Special Secretary, Building Construction Department, Bihar, Patna ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shakil Ahmad Khan, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. K.K. Singh, AC to GP-22 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA)

Date : 17-03-2023

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed claiming the

following reliefs :-

"(A) For quashing the Letter No.7974(M) dated 05.09.2017 (Annexure-1), issued from the office of Bihar State Building Construction Department, Patna and further by vacating the aforesaid order dated 05.09.2017 restore the License of the petitioner to its original form and the petitioner be Patna High Court CWJC No.6897 of 2018 dt.17-03-2023

allowed to work as usual.

(B) For that the respondent- authorities further be directed not to disturb the petitioner's License bearing Licence No.313/Bhawan/2016 which is still valid and effective till date.

(C) For granting any other appropriate relief/reliefs to the petitioner as your Lordshps may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case".

3. The short facts, according to the petitioner, are that

the petitioner was registered Class III (Personal) Contractor of

Building Construction Department, Building Division, Motihari.

On 14.02.2017, the petitioner sent an application to the

Engineer-in-Chief, Building Construction and Housing

Department, Bihar, Patna stating therein that the Superintending

Engineer, Prabhat Kumar and Executive Engineer, Sharad

Chand demanded illegal gratification over work done by him in

the Building of Motihari Civil Court in the year 2015-16 and the

bill of the petitioner was still pending in the Department.

Thereafter, the petitioner personally visited to the respondents

for payment of bill of work, but they abused and assaulted the

petitioner and refused to pay the bill. Thereafter, the petitioner

lodged the FIR bearing Motihari Town P.S. Case No.105 of

2017 on 18.02.2017 under Sections 341, 323, 325, 379, 504/34

of Indian Penal Code against the respondent-authorities. Patna High Court CWJC No.6897 of 2018 dt.17-03-2023

However, on 16.02.2017, the respondents have filed an FIR

bearing Motihari (Town) P.S. Case No. 95 of 2017 under

Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 353, 379, 504, 506 of the Indian

Penal Code. Thereafter, on 12.06.2017, a letter was issued from

the office of the Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional

Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary to the petitioner in which

an explanation was asked regarding the incident of 16.02.2017.

Pursuant to the aforesaid letter dated 12.06.2017, the petitioner

submitted his explanation on 21.06.2017. Thereafter, vide office

order dated 05.09.2017, the Licence No.313

(Personal)/Bhawan/2016 of the petitioner has been blacklisted

for the period of 10 years. Being aggrieved by the action of the

respondents, the petitioner has filed the present Writ.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

that after completion of the work, when the petitioner went to

the office of the respondents and requested them for making

payment of his bill, all the respondents misbehaved with the

petitioner for which he lodged an FIR against the officials of the

respondents. Due to this fact, impugned order has been passed

against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has

further submitted that there is no reason to take such a major

step, but for the benefit of respondents, the action for Patna High Court CWJC No.6897 of 2018 dt.17-03-2023

blacklisting the licence of the petitioner has been taken by the

respondents. The learned counsel further submitted that the

impugned order has been passed against the petitioner by the

respondent authorities without holding proper enquiry and

without considering his reply in the matter and, as such, the

impugned order is a clear misuse/abuse of power of the

respondents on the basis of non-existent ground.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

respondents while justifying the reasons for blacklisting the

licence of the petitioner, vehemently contended that the

petitioner has not made out any ground which would justify his

action in pursuance of which the impugned action was taken

after compliance of principles of natural justice. The conduct

and behaviour of the petitioner had been out-rightly criminal in

nature and if no action would have been taken against him, it

would have jeopardized the whole work environment of the

Division and also the morale of employees. Hence, no

interference is required by this Court in this matter.

6. Having considered the material available on record

and rival submissions, it appears that the petitioner along with

his associates entered into the office of the Building Division,

Motihari and started assaulting Sri Suraj Kumar, the Patna High Court CWJC No.6897 of 2018 dt.17-03-2023

Correspondence Clerk as well as Chuman Prasad, Peon and

abused them. Those persons reached the residence of the

Executive Engineer as well. The miscreants threatened the

office bearers and staff that they would have to act on their

dictates if they wanted to work at Motihari and they also looted

away cash as well as other belongings of the employees.

Thereafter, Motihari (Town) P.S. Case No. 95 of 2017 was

lodged against the petitioner as well as other miscreants on the

written application of Suraj Kumar, Correspondence Clerk. The

action of the petitioner created unwanted disturbance and

hindrance in execution of public work in the Division and it was

completely a criminal act on his behalf.

7. Furthermore, the FIR of the respondents was

registered on 16.02.2017 whereas the FIR of the petitioner is

dated 18.02.2017 which show, it has been filed after due

deliberation as a counterblast to the criminal case of the

respondents. It shows the criminal bent of mind of the petitioner.

8. It further appears that the concerned officers

recommended for blacklisting of petitioner's licence under the

provisions of Bihar Contractor Registration Rules, 2007. The

petitioner was issued a show cause notice vide letter dated

12.06.2017 and he submitted his explanation vide letter dated Patna High Court CWJC No.6897 of 2018 dt.17-03-2023

21.06.2017. The said explanation was considered and rejected

by the impugned order. Thus, the order of blacklisting was

issued only after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and

consideration of his explanation and he could not produce any

material or reason so as to challenge the order of blacklisting.

9. It is well settled principle of law that the

constitutional courts are expected to exercise restrain in

interfering with the administrative decisions and they ought not

to substitute their views substituting that of the administrative

authority.

10. Further, this Court finds and holds that no illegality

or irregularity has been committed in blacklisting the licence of

the petitioner and the reasons assigned for the same are well

justified and the same do not require interference by this Court.

11. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J)

( Arun Kumar Jha, J) V.K.Pandey/-

AFR/NAFR                N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE                N.A.
Uploading Date          21.03.2023
Transmission Date       N.A.