1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the decision taken by the respondents as contained in the newspaper dated 22.9.2016 published under the signature of the Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department, Government of Jharkhand whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted from future works. It is further prayed for quashing of Memo No. JSRRDA-251/15-3418 dated 26.12.2016 issued by Chief Engineer, Jharkhand State Rural Road Development Agency (in short to be referred as JSRRDA) Department of Rural Development, Government of Jharkhand whereby the application of the petitioner for removing his name from blacklisting has also been rejected. It is also prayed for return of the security amount deposited for the concerned work.

2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the respondent authorities issued a notice inviting tender for construction and maintenance of Road under PMGSY 2008-09 package JH0711 (VI) [T04 to Dudhwal] vide Memo No. 1575 dated 15.7.2009 (hereinafter called the said work). The petitioner being a Grade-1 Contractor applied for the allotment of the said work and the work was finally allotted to it. An agreement in this regard was also entered into vide Agreement No. 23/2009-10 and the work order was issued on 15.10.2010 having 12 months time for execution of the work. It is claimed by the petitioner that despite all sincere efforts, the work could not be completed due to naxalite activities. However, it was published in the newspaper on 22.9.2016 that the petitioner-firm has been blacklisted by the Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Special Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of Jharkhand (the respondent no. 3). The petitioner, thereafter, represented the Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of Jharkhand (the respondent no. 2) on 5.10.2016 for delisting it from blacklisting. The Chief Engineer, JSRRDA, Rural Work of Department, Government of Jharkhand (the respondent no. 4), vide Memo No. 2875 dated 31.10.2016 asked the petitioner as to on what ground it may be delisted from the blacklisting. The petitioner replied on 10.11.2016, however the respondent no. 4 vide letter dated 26.12.2016 declined to delist the petitioner from blacklisting which gives rise to filing of the present writ petition.

3. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the order of blacklisting has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the respondents while passing the order of blacklisting totally ignored the fact that the execution of the work was delayed not due to the fault of the petitioner, rather the work could not be executed due to naxal activities for which several intimations were already given to the respondents. In fact the Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Works, Government of Jharkhand (the respondent no. 2) vide letter dated 3.10.2013 himself intimated the Director General, NRRDA that it was ascertained from the field staff as well as in the State level review meeting that further construction is not feasible at the site now and these should be closed suitably at the present stage. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order of permanent blacklisting/debarment against the petitioner is de hors the settled principle of law. In support of the said contention, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner puts reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulja Industries Ltd. vs. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others, (2014) 14 SCC 731 : 2013 (4) JLJR (SC) 331.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner never complained before the district administration or the concerned department about the naxal problem, either orally or in writing. It is further submitted that the petition