Advocate Appeared :
For the Petitioner : M/s Abhay Kumar Mishra, Bhola Nath Ojha
For the Respondents : Mrs. Aprajita Bhardwaj, J.C to Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G

2. Petitioner has been blacklisted as per the communication bearing no. 709 dated 14.7.2014 (Annexure-23) in respect of the supplies to be made under the Jharkhand Construction Work Welfare Board. By the show cause at Annexure 15 dated 27.5.2014 bearing no.717 issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ranchi, petitioner was asked to explain as to why his bills be not withheld; remaining supplies be not stopped and he be prohibited from participating in any future tender under the Department on failure to supply good of quality specification in the Garhwa Range relating to the Welfare Board. Petitioner submitted his response on 9.6.2014 (Annexure-14) which did not satisfy the Respondents. The impugned order accordingly stated that supplies in Garhwa District were inquired through the Committee comprising the Labour Enforcement Officer and BOC Clerk. The committee compared the supplies made with the samples submitted earlier and Assistant Labour Commissioner reported that they were of inferior quality. Petitioner was informed earlier through letter dated 24.6.2014 to make supplies as per required specification regarding which he again failed to make any communication. It was therefore found that supplies made in respect of the project for welfare of the labourers was completely in deviance with the quality specification. Accordingly, decision was taken to blacklist the petitioner in respect of any supply relating to future project under the Welfare Board.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner besides laying challenge to the impugned decision on merits has taken a legal point that the impugned decision blacklisting / debarring the petitioner from all future tenders under the Welfare Board of the Department for indefinite length of time is in teeth of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorkha Security Services Vrs. Government (NCT of Delhi) & others reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105 (para 21 and 22 thereof). It is submitted that the impugned notice did not even specify the quantum of punishment proposed to be inflicted apart from giving details of the allegations and the inquiry report to enable the petitioner to adequately respond to the charge. The show cause notice also did not conform to the mandatory ingredients as laid down in the case of Gorkha Security Services(supra) at Para 21 and 22 of the report. Therefore, petitioner continues to suffer for almost 3 years on account of the order of blacklisting operating against him. This has entailed adverse civil consequences in the matter of carrying on his business in exercise of its Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India not only in respect of the Respondent Welfare Board but it acts as disqualification in other tenders also with other Instrumentality or agency for indefinite period of time. Petitioner has therefore sought interference under writ jurisdiction of this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the Respondent State has strongly defended the impugned order. She submits that conditions enumerated as per the work order dated 6.2.2013(Annexure-4) read with short term tender notice dated 20.10.2012(Annexure-1) enumerated at para 9 of the counter affidavit were breached by the petitioner. Time was essence of the contract and petitioner was required to ensure that articles were in running conditions. Not only delay was made in the supplies, petitioner did not even inform the Respondents in advance to enable them to make alternative arrangement because the articles were to be distributed in a pre-scheduled public programme, where all the beneficiaries were invited to receive their respective kits. In such circumstance, a warning letter vide letter no. 26.12.2013 was issued directing the petitioner to comply with the work order in time, failing which, he would be held ineligible to participate in future tender. Petitioner was again given chance. This time the