Also heard Mr. I. Choudhury v. Nos. 1

legations levelled against them. It appears that on 17.11.2009, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Tinsukia Rural Road Division issued a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner asking him to show cause a s to why he should not be blacklisted from participating or bidding for any work to be undertaken by the Government of Assam in the PWD Department on the allega tions mentioned therein. The petitioner had also responded to the said Show Caus e Notice by submitting a reply on 19.12.2009. Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner questions the juri sdiction of the Standing Empowered Committee to pass the order dated 28.6.2010 o n the ground that the Standing Empowered Committee had not issued any Show Cause Notice and therefore, blacklisting of the petitioner by the said committee is w holly unwarranted. He also submits that a bare perusal of the minutes of the mee ting dated 28.6.2010 will demonstrate that the Standing Empowered Committee did not even advert to the Show Cause Notice issued by the Executive Engineer on 17. 11.2009 and the replies thereto submitted by the petitioner. According to the le arned Senior Counsel, apart from the order being without jurisdiction, the same depicts a mechanical exercise of power causing grave adverse consequences to the petitioner. Mr. I. Choudhury, representing the PWD, on the other hand, submits that though the minutes of the meeting dated 28.6.2010 does not indicate any reference to ei ther the Show Cause Notice or the replies thereto, reading as a whole of the min utes would go to suggest that the Standing Empowered Committee was alive to the issue of blacklisting and on consideration of the relevant materials on record, had passed the order. The learned counsel further submits that no authority has been specified either in terms of the contract or in any rules prescribing a par ticular authority competent to issue a notice for blacklisting. He has also draw n the attention of this Court to the minutes of the meeting dated 28.6.2010 to h ighlight that large scale irregularities had taken place and the Standing Empowe red Committee had taken cognizance of the fact that a number of Engineers in the rank of Executive Engineers, Assistant Executive Engineers and Assistant Engine ers were suspended and the departmental proceedings were initiated against them. In this background, the learned counsel submits, that there is nothing wrong on the part of the Standing Empowered Committee to have taken upon itself the task of deciding as to whether the petitioner deserves to be blacklisted or not. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the submissions. I have also perused the materials on record. There is no dispute that an order of blacklisting invites civil consequences and therefore, principles of natural justice have to be scrupulously observed befor e an order of blacklisting is passed. This Court, in the earlier round of litiga tion, had also made it explicitly clear that the respondent authorities would is sue Show Cause Notice to the petitioner to enable it to put forward its version on the allegations against it and that respondent authorities would consider suc h reply as may be furnished and only thereafter it would take an appropriate dec ision in the matter. A reading of the minutes of the meeting dated 28.6.2010 doe s not persuade the Court to take a view that the Standing Empowered Committee ha d considered the allegations levelled against the petitioner by the Show Cause N otice dated 17.11.2009 and the reply thereof. The Standing Empowered Committee h ad also taken into account certain allegations like siphoning of public money wh ich did not provide the foundation for issuing the Show Cause Notice for blackli sting. The submission of Mr. Choudhury that a picture emerges from the minutes o f the meeting that the Standing Empowered Committee was alive to the issues, can not be readily inferred and on the contrary, this Court is of the opinion that t he finding recorded that the petitioner deserves to be blacklisted was arrived a t without considering the case projected by the writ petitioner in its reply. In that view of the matter, the order of blacklisting as recorded in the minutes o f the meeting dated 28.6.2010 is vitiated. Accordingly, the minutes recording th e decision to blacklist the petitioner is interfered with and set aside. Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, is unable to lay before this Court any particular provision to show that it is only the Execu tive Engineer who is competent to issue a Show Cause Notice for blacklisting. No doubt, in the instance case the Show Cause Notice for blacklisting was issued b y an Executive Engineer. However, this Court cannot brush aside the argument off ered by Mr. Choudhury that a number of Engineers connected with the contracts in question came to be suspended and are facing disciplinary proceeding. In this c ontext, this Court is of the opinion that the consideration of the reply of the petitioner should be left to the opinion of an authority other than the Executiv e Engineer who had issued the Show Cause Notice. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the parties submit that direction may be issued to the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads) to consider and pass appropriate or ders on the Show Cause Notice dated 17.11.2009 issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads) by considering the reply of the petitioner as well as after hearing the petitioner. In that view of the matter, it is directed that the reply dated 19.12.2009 submi tted by the petitioner in response to the Show Cause Notice dated 17.11.2009 sha ll now be considered by the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads) by affording an opportun ity to the petitioner and thereafter, he will pass such orders on the Show Cause Notice dated 17.11.2009 as may be called for. The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above.