ORDER

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.

2. Heard on IA No. 11765/2021, an application for intervention.

3. Counsel appearing for the intervenor has pointed out that he is a Journalist and has made a complaint to the respondent No. 2 regarding serious corruptions made by the petitioner. On the basis of the investigation carried out on the complaint made by the intervenor, fake bills to the tune of Rs.823640/- were found and that is why the contracts of the company were terminated and subsequent order was passed regarding blacklisting of the company. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bakshi Security and Personnel Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Kevkishan Computed Pvt. Ltd. Decided on 26th of July 2016 in Civil Appeal No. 6978/2016, wherein it is held that “if the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone, or whether the public interest is affected, the matter may not interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India”.

4. Counsel appearing for petitioner on the contrary has opposed the application vehemently and has contended that the intervenor has no right to intervening in the matter owing to the fact he is only the complainant in the case and on the basis of the complaint made by the intervenor, cognizance was already by the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 acted on the complaint and has passed by the impugned order whereby on one hand the contract of the petitioner was terminated and on the other hand, he was blacklisted for an indefinite period. The aforesaid aspect was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 18387/2020, (M.P. Karmachari Congress v. State of M.P. and others, wherein it is held that once on the complaint filed by the petitioner, a cognizance is taken then the work of the petitioner is over. No further locus is available to the petitioner to seek further action on the complaint or the enquiry report.

5. The Single Bench in the case of M.P. Karmachari Congress v. State of M.P. and others (supra), passed in W.P. No. 18387/2020 has held as under :-

“In view of the aforestated legal position, the petitioner has no locus to file this petition. The right to avail a remedy under the law is the right of every citizen but such right cannot extend to misuse the judicial process.”

6. The aforesaid order was put to challenge by the petitioner before the Division Bench in W.A. No. 64/2021, (M.P. Karmachari Congress v. State of M.P. and others) and the order passed by the Single Bench was upheld, vide order dated 10.2.201 and the Division Bench has held as under :-

“In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground of the locous.

Accordingly, the present writ appeal is dismissed.”

7. In such circumstances, once the cognizance has been taken by the respondent No. 2 on the complaint made by the intervenor the intervenor/complainant is having no locus to intervene in the matter.

8. Looking to the fact that on the complaint made by the intervenor, cognizance has already been taken by the authorities and the order impugned has been passed, considering the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of M.P. Karmachari Congress v. State of M.P. and others, (supra), the intervenor/complainant is having no locus to intervene in the matter. In such circumstances, the application for intervention is hereby rejected.

9. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.

10. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.5.2020, passed by the respondent No. 2, whereby the petitioner company has been blacklisted for an unlimited period. It is pointed that the petitioner is a company registered