M/S Suraj Deo Singh and Sons a Partnership firm represented by its first partner v. … … 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Secretary, Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 4183 of 2024 ---------- M/S Suraj Deo Singh and Sons a Partnership firm represented by its first partner Manoj Kumar, aged about 51 years, S/o Late Suraj Deo Singh having its officer Suraj Complex Belwatikar Chowk, P.O. Belwatikar, P.S. Medininagar and District- Palamu Petitioner – Versus … … 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Secretary, Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation Government of Jharkhand having its office at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi 3. Chief Engineer, C.D.O., Drinking Water and Sanitation, Government Doranda, of Jharkhand having its office at Doranda, P.O. & P.S. District- Ranchi 4. Engineer in Chief, Drinking Water and Sanitation, Government of Doranda, Jharkhand having its office at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. District- Ranchi. 5. Superintending Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Circle, – – Medininagar, office at P.O. Palamu Daltonganj, P.S. Daltonganj, District – 6. Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Division, – Medininagar, office at P.O. Palamu Daltonganj, P.S. Daltonganj, District – ------- – … … Respondents – CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI For the Petitioner For the State ORAL ORDER ------- : Mr. Kalyan Roy, Advocate : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate : Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, A.C. to A.G. 03/Dated: 18th September, 2024 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.: 1. The instant writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directed against the order dated 10.06.2024 Page 1 of 19 issued under the signature of Respondent No. 3 by which the writ petitioner has been blacklisted for a period of five years. Factul Matrix: 2. The brief facts as per the pleadings is required to be enumerated as hereinunder: The Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation Division, Medininagar invited tenders for construction of certain works under Jal Jiwan Mission Scheme. The petitioner has purchased tender paper and has participated in the tender proceeding which was held on 05.01.2022. The petitioner had also deposited a sum of Rs. 17.40 Lakhs towards earnest money. The total valuation of contract work was Rs. 1739.90 lakhs whereas for the particular work of construction of ESR total value of Rs. 30.19 lakhs. The tender was open on 20.01.2022 and petitioner was found to be the lowest bidder. Under the Jal Jiwan Mission Scheme, the petitioner was to execute the work of Construction of Infiltration Gallery and RCC Intake Well cum Pump House, RCC Gangway and 1.60 MLD capacity Unconventional Water Treatment Plant, ESR-1 1.50 Lakh Liter capacity with 23 M Staging, ESR-2 2.70 Lakh Litre capacity with 24M Staging, Staff Quarter, Compound Wall, Supplying and laying raw/clear water rising main and distribution network, house connection, supplying and installation of VT and centrifugal pump motor and Five years operation & maintenance with allied works etc. a complete job for Gagikhas-Kajri Rural Pipe Water Supply Scheme under Drinking Water and Sanitation Division, Medininagar turnkey basis (Year 2021-22). Page 2 of 19 After the meeting of tender committee which was held on 09.02.2022, the respondent No. 4 has issued work order on 21.02.2022 and an agreement was also executed on 25.02.2022 for 1838.71 lakhs. Thereafter, the petitioner started executing the contract work as per approved specification and design. The work has been executed by concerned Division i.e., Drinking Water and Sanitation Division, Medininagar under the overall supervision of Respondent No. 5. The Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation has also engaged a third-party investigation agency names as WAPCOS India which is a Government of India enterprise (herein after referred as TPI) for supervision of work. A site order book consisting of 94 pages has been prepared for the purpose of supervision of the construction work executed by the contractor. The petitioner has started construction of Elevated Storage Reservoir (herein after referred as ESR). The Respondent No. 5, on 23.11.2022, has inspected the construction work and found the same as satisfactory and within the preview of prescribed specification. On 13.12.2022, the TPI has inspected the construction work and found the same as satisfactory and within the preview of prescribed specification. Thereafter, on several dates, the inspection were done by the TPI, Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer, who were to assist Respondent No. 6 himself and the work performed by the petitioner was found to be satisfactory. Apart from the aforesaid work, the petitioner also executing the other works for construction of Infiltration Gallery and RCC Intake Well cum Pump House, RCC Gangway and 1.60 MLD capacity Unconventional Water Treatment Plant, ESR 1 OF 1.50 Lakh litre capacity with 23 M Staging, ESR-2 of 2.70 Lakh litre capacity with 24 M Staging, staff quarter, compound wall, supplying and laying Page 3 of 19 raw/clear water rising main and distribution network etc satisfactorily and well within prescribed period. Although the ESR-1 was about to be completed as due to permission from NHAI was not granted for laying of pipe paralleled to NH road, the petitioner was requested to stop the work which prevented the petitioner from completing the work. On 30.03.2024, there was a huge storm and thunder on construction site. Several thunder hit the pillar of ESR resulted into collapse of ESR at about 10.35 p.m. As soon as the petitioner received such information, the petitioner itself on 30.03.2024 informed the Junior Engineer and the petitioner with Junior Engineer visited the construction site at about 1.00 a.m. of 31.03.2024 and found that due to severe thundering, the ESR has been collapsed. An information to that effect has been given to Executive Engineer-Respondent No. 6 and Superintending Engineer- Respondent No. 5 on 31.03.2024. In that letter, it has been mentioned by the petitioner that there was storm, heavy rain and thundering in the night of 30.03.2024 which resulted in collapse of ESR. The petitioner has also informed that he will reconstruct the ESR at his own cost. The Executive Engineer-Respondent No. 6 vide his letter No. 829 dated 01.04.2024 and the Superintending Engineer-Respondent No. 5 vide his letter No. 627 dated 01.04.2024 has informed the Engineer-in-Chief, who is Respondent No. 4 and the Zonal Chief Engineer, Ranchi Zone, Drinking Water and Sanitation, Government of Jharkhand regarding collapse of ESR due to storm, heavy rain, and thundering and they have also informed that the petitioner has agreed to reconstruct the ESR at his own cost The Zonal Chief Engineer Ranchi Zone Drinking Water and Sanitation, Government of Jharkhand vide his letter dated Page 4 of 19 09/04/2024 has directed the Superintending Engineer respondent no. 5 to collect the sample of RCC structure, Rod used and depth of foundation as well as quantity of rod utilized for construction of ESR, column, beam and bracing and to make available to department for the purpose of inspection of the same in the laboratory of BIT, Mesra, Ranchi. Superintending Engineer, respondent no. 4 vide letter no. 680 dated 10/04/2024 informed Executive Engineer respondent no. 6 and the petitioner for compliance of the order of the Zonal Chief Engineer, Ranchi Zone, Drinking Water and Sanitation, Government of Jharkhand for compliance of the order of the Zonal Chief Engineer, Ranchi Zone Drinking Water and Sanitation, Government of Jharkhand as communicated vide letter no. 680 dated 10/04/2024. For compliance of the order the Zonal Chief Engineer, Ranchi Zone, Drinking Water and Sanitation, Government of Jharkhand, was held discussion in the chamber of Superintendent Engineer Respondent No. - 5 with the Superintending Engineer respondent no. 5, the Executive Engineer respondent no. 6 and the petitioner, that for compliance of the order of the Zonal Chief Engineer, Ranchi Zone, Drinking Water and Sanitation, Government of Jharkhand, depth of foundation has to be verified and for that the collapsed material has to be removed, then it was decided that let us wait for 20-25 days for inspection team, if any, from head quarter for inspection of the collapse of ESR, then after inspection, collapsed material and other material may be removed and foundation may be dug for verification of depth of foundation. The Executive Engineer respondent no. 6 vide letter no. 949 dated 23/04/2024 again directed the petitioner for compliance of the order of the Zonal Chief Engineer, Ranchi Zone Drinking Water and Sanitation, Government of Jharkhand. Page 5 of 19 A review meeting of officers of Drinking Water and Santitation, Government of Jharkhand and field officers of the Medininagar Circle regarding progress of ongoing schemes was held on 24/04/2024 under the Chairmanship of Secretary. In the meeting, the respondent no. 6 has informed that 87% of concerned work has already been completed and necessary direction has been issued to the contractor for completing the work. The respondent no. 6 has also informed that ESR has damaged, during construction, the concerned contractor has given written undertaking that it will reconstruct the same at his own cost. In the meeting, a decision has been taken by the Secretary, to take action against concerned TPI, agency and to debar and blacklist the contractor forthwith and also to suspend the Executive Engineer-Respondent No. 6. After the decision was taken in the said meeting to blacklist the contractor the Engineer in Chief, respondent no. 4 has constituted two men committee for inspection of the site. Thereafter enquire the matter vide order dated 25/04/2024. The two member inspection team constituted by the Engineer-in-Chief in which Chief Engineer, PMU cum Superintending Engineer, CDO is the person who has approved the design and drawing of the ESR. The committee, which has been constituted for the purpose of inspection of ESR- 1, has inspected the site on 26/04/2024 and 27/04/2024. The petitioner cooperated with the committee in inspection and for collecting samples on the said dates to enable the respondents to get the sample for sending it to BIT, Mesra for assessment of the quality of the material utilized. The laboratory of BIT, Mesra is to verify as to whether the material used by the contractor is upto the standard and as per the specification or not. Page 6 of 19 The respondent no. 6 vide letter dated 27/04/2024 sent the samples of Steel & concrete to BIT Mesra, Ranchi. The two members inspection team submitted its inspection report on 06/05/2024. In the inspection report it has been mentioned that as per approved design and drawing lap and anchorage length in reinforcement end joint of bracing has not been maintained. The petitioner states that during the course of inspection the inspecting team has not removed the concrete over the end joint of bracing reinforcement of lap and anchorage length and has assessed only by eye estimation that in end joint of Bracing reinforcement lap and anchorage length has not been maintained. The petitioner states that without removing the concrete the measurement of lap and anchorage length cannot be ascertained. The partner of the petitioner being Civil Engineer is well conversant to the fact that the measurement of lap and anchorage length cannot be ascertained without removing the concrete. But unfortunately the inspection team did not pay any heed thereto and prepare report without removing concrete. From the inspection report it is alleged that the construction was not made in accordance with approved design and drawing. The department of Civil and Environment Engineering BIT, Mesra Ranchi has sent its report on 07/05/2024 to the respondent no. 6. The report was sent in respect of compressive strength test of concrete sample. From the aforesaid report it is evident that the compressive strength is found as per the specification as provided in clause Sl. No.-2.8(A) of an agreement. As per the agreement the compressive strength is required to be 25 N/mm2 whereas as per the test report the compressive strength is found to be average 27.23N/mm2 which is much more than the approved specification Page 7 of 19 The department of mechanical engineer BIT, Mesra Ranchi
Legal Reasoning
vide report 09/05/2024 has confirmed that the quality of steel is within the specification standard. Unfortunately, instead accepting the report, the Secretary convene a meeting dated 08/05/2024 and disagreed with the report of BIT, Mesra and has directed to cancel NABL certificate of the laboratory of BIT Mesra Ranchi and also blacklist third party investigating (TPI) agency with immediate effect. The BIT, Mesra has been recognized and granted National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratory (NABL) certificate by the Central Government, in that view of the matter only the Central Government can cancel the NABL certificate of BIT Mesra. The respondent no. 3 in compliance of order of the Secretary, dated 24.04.2024 vide letter dated 09/05/2024 asked the petitioner to show cause as to why it should not be blacklisted. The petitioner states that pursuant to the aforesaid notice, the petitioner filed the show cause reply and has categorically denied that it has used substandard material for construction of ESR. It further reiterated that the inspection team has not inspected properly as they have not removed the concrete over the end joint of bracing reinforcement of lap and anchorage length and prepared report in a highly mechanical manner and opined that lap and anchorage length reinforcement has not been properly maintained. After inspection by inspecting team, the Executive Engineer, respondent no. 6 directed the petitioner in presence of the team member for compliance of the order of the zonal Chief Engineer for verification of depth of foundation after removal of collapsed material. In compliance of the order of Executive Engineer, the collapsed material was removed and foundation was dug and Page 8 of 19 verified by concerned Junior Engineer and Estimator of the office of the superintending Engineer on 08/05/2024. On 10/05/2024 the petitioner informed to the Executive Engineer-Respondent No. 6, the Superintending Engineer- Respondent No. 5, the Engineer-in-Chief-Respondent No. 4 and the Chief Engineer (PMU) regarding starting of reconstruction of ESR. The Executive Engineer-Respondent No. 6 in compliance of the direction of secretary vide his letter no. 1122 dated 21/05/2024 received on 24/05/2024 has directed the petitioner to stop the work of reconstruction of ESR. The Secretary vide letter dated 06/06/2024 has requested IIT Roorkee for vetting of design and drawing of the ESR of different capacity including that of design and drawing of the petitioner. The respondent no. 3 without considering the report of BIT Mesra and without considering the show cause reply of the petitioner, and without receiving the report regarding vetting of Design & Drawing from IIT Roorkee, has passed the impugned order dated 10/06/2024 and has blacklisted the petitioner for 5 years forthwith and also directed all the concerned authorities for putting an embargo against the petitioner from executing other works. The registration of the petitioner has also been cancelled. The order of Blacklisting and forfeiting of security deposit and cancellation of all contract work was mainly based on inspection reports dated 06/05/2014 and report of the superintending engineer vide his letter no. 879 dated 22/05/2024 which were not made available to the petitioner along with the show-cause letter No. 512 dated 09/05/2024 of the Chief Engineer CDO to the petitioner. The under Secretary, Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Government of Jharkhand, vide his letter No. 1100 dated 15/05/2024 has asked show cause enclosing the inspection report dated 06/05/2024 and details explanation has been submitted by Page 9 of 19 the petitioner to the Under Secretary vide his letter 1100 dated 15/05/2024 which is still under consideration in the Department of Drinking water and Sanitation, Government of Jharkhand. The petitioner states that although the concerned department vide letter dated 06/06/2024 requested IIT Roorkee for vetting the drawing and design of ESR but no information to that effect has been received by the petitioner, which constrain it to make an application to IIT Roorkee for vetting the drawing and design of ESR. The IIT Rookee vide its report dated 04/07/2024 has confirmed that the structural drawing and design of 1.5 lakh litter of RRC overhead water tank was not proper and it was found that the provided reinforcement in the primary structural members is not adequate to sustain the prescribed loading. The IIT BHU also vide their report dated 04/07/2024 has confirmed that the co efficiency for support and spain considered in the design are incorrect. It is also confirmed that the load taken on the ring beam in the design is less than the actual expected load and the design does not consider the factored load as per IS456:2000. The report also clearly suggests that the design lacks ductile detailing and calculation as per IS 13920. A report from the BIT Mesra Ranchi department of Civil and Environment Engineering was also obtained and from the report dated 06/07/2024 it is evident that the drawing and design of ESR 1.50 lakh capacity was defective. Again another consultant S.P Tech Designs LLP also in their report dated 27/06/2024 has confirmed that drawing and design of 1.50 lakhs capacity of ESR was defective and for the said resign ESR was collapsed. Page 10 of 19 It is the case of the petitioner that the three premier institute of India have given reports in respect of drawing and design of ESR and all the report of premier Institute clearly suggest the drawing and design of ESR was defective and the same cause for collapse the ESR. All the ESR of almost same design and drawing either constructed by the petitioner or other contractor are collapsed. One of the ESR in Koderma has collapsed which has been constructed by M/S A.K.G Construction & Developers Pvt. Ltd due to defective design. The M/S A.K.G Construction & Developers Pvt. Ltd has also obtained vetting report of Design and Drawing of ESR from IIT Rookee, IIT BHU and IIT Patna, which also show that the Design and Drawing approved by the CDO is defective. The existing rule in the department in case of any damage caused during course of construction, the contractor is liable to repair or reconstruct at his own cost. Therefore, started construction of ESR and 15% of the work was also done but since the Secretary has already taken a decision to blacklist and debarred the petitioner from construction of work, he was directed to stop construction. However, no action has been taken against TPI or any other agency which are responsible for inspection and construction of the ESR. Further, the officer who has approved the drawing and design of ESR has not been taken into task. One of the members of the inspection team who has given the adverse report against the petitioner has approved the drawing and design of ESR. But, no action has been taken against the TPI also in compliance of the order of the Secretary, as ordered in the meeting dated 24/04/24 and 08/05/24. The petitioner states that in the meeting dated 24/04/2024, the secretary of the department has already taken decision for Page 11 of 19 blacklisting the petitioner. Moreover vide letter no. 11 dated 25/04/2024 a direction has been given by the secretary for blacklisting the petitioner. Apart from blacklisting the petitioner and forfeiting its security of the work, all divisions where contract work has been completed or are on-going the different FD’s deposited money and securities and deducted from the bills of the work done have been forfeited and deposited in the Government revenue. The work Gari Khas Kajri Rular Pipe Water Supply Scheme wherein the ESR was collapsed is worth Rs 30.945 lakhs i.e, 1.7% of the total value of the work i.e, 1.7% of Rs 1837.11 lakhs, but other contract works which were completed satisfactorily has also been cancelled without giving the petitioner any opportunity of hearing. The ESR has been collapsed due to defective design and drawing and natural calamity, as such the petitioner has no control over the same. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner has used standard material for construction of the ESR. The petitioner has preferred an appeal before the respondent no. 2 on 08/07/2024 under Rule 10.7 of Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Jharkhand Contractor Registration Rule 2012. The petitioner requested the appellate authority for disposal of the appeal at the earliest but the petitioner was informed by the office of Respondent No. 2 that there is no chance of hearing in the appeal in near future. Therefore, the present writ petition has been preferred. 3. It appears from the pleading made that the work in question has been allotted in favour of the writ petitioner but after almost completion of the said work i.e., ESR (Elevated Storage Reservoir), Page 12 of 19 the same has been collapsed. The decision was taken by the authority to constitute a committee to look into the accountability. 4. The Enquiry Committee has submitted the report based upon that the decision was taken by the authority to blacklist the writ petitioner and as such a show cause notice was issued on 09.05.2024, which is marked as Annexure 15, seeking explanation
Decision
from the writ petitioner as to why the petitioner be not blacklisted for the alleged commission of irregularity in construction of the water tower. 5. The writ petitioner has responded to said show cause denying the allegation that it has used substandard material for construction of ESR and categorically stated that on 30.03.2024, due to huge storm and thunder, the construction collapsed. As such, there is no accountability for the aforesaid, therefore, the contractor nowhere is responsible/ accountable of getting the administrative approval which is the exclusive domain of the concerned department. 6. According to the writ petitioner, without considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter as also without supplying the inquiry report based upon that the decision was taken to blacklist the writ petitioner, the order of blacklisting was passed on 10.06.2024 for five years. 7. In view of the provision of Rule 10.3 and 10.4 of the Contractor Registration Rule, 2012, the same is under challenge and the matter was heard by this Court on 26.07.2024. 8. The learned counsel for the State took time to file counter-affidavit and pursuant to thereof, the counter affidavit has been filed. Submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners: Page 13 of 19 9. Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the decision based upon the inquiry conducted by the authority by constituting Inquiry Committee is the sole basis for initiation for proceeding and based upon that the show cause notice has been issued to explain as to why the petitioner be not blacklisted for the cause of lapses committed by him in the matter of construction of water tower. 10. The submission has been made that although the said commission of irregularity has been disputed by the taking the ground that there is no error in making construction rather there is error which has been found in the Inquiry Report with respect to the approval of design which has been approved by the concerned department. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also taken the ground that the very basis of the initiation of proceedings that is the Inquiry Report has not been supplied to the writ petitioner and as such due to its non-supply, the petitioner has been deprived from adequate and sufficient opportunity to defend. 12. It has also been submitted by referring to Paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit wherein the State has admitted that on the basis of the conclusion which has been arrived and found in course of inquiry, the decision to blacklist the writ petitioner for five years and forfeiture a deposited as the earnest money and security deposited deducted nd different FD’s amounting to Rs. 1,87,46,800.00 from the bills of different contract work to Rs. 4,04,58,533/- have been taken. 13. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the order suffers from an error and as such is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents: Page 14 of 19 14. Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, learned A.C. to A.G., while on the other hand, has submitted by making referring to the stand taken inter alia in the counter affidavit wherein it has been said that the Inquiry Report, the irregularity of the writ petitioner said to having been committed have been surfaced and basis upon the finding of the said inquiry report the decision has been taken to blacklist the writ petitioner, hence there is no error in the impugned order. 15. Further, it is also not the case of the writ petitioner that we were passing the impugned order dated 10.06.2024, the opportunity of hearing has not been taken place. Analysis: 16. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the pleading made in the writ petition, the counter affidavit and the finding recorded by the authority concerned while passing the order impugned. The issue which has been raised on behalf of the petitioner that although the show cause notice has been issued before taking decision to blacklist by issuance of show cause notice on 09.05.2024 but can the said show cause notice be said to the fulfilment of opportunity said to provide adequate and sufficient. 17. The consideration of such issue is required herein. 18. In view of the admitted fact that the very basis of issuance of show cause notice to blacklist the writ petitioner is the finding recorded by the Inquiry Committee which was constituted by the competent authority for collapse of the water tower. 19. The issue of natural justice cannot be said to be formality but merely an opportunity given to the litigant concerned against whom the adverse decision is to be taken by calling an explanation rather the very basis upon which such decision has been taken is also required to be provided then only will be said the fulfilment of the principle of natural justice said to be adequate and sufficient. Page 15 of 19 20. The very basis of the show cause since the Inquiry report which goes to the root of the issue and as such it was the bounden duty of the authority concerned to supply the said document along with the show cause so that the writ petitioner would have an opportunity to go through the content of the said Inquiry Report and be able to give a finding. 21. Further, due to non-supply of inquiry report, the petitioner is not in position to reply the said show cause notice in entirety. If the reply to the show cause would have been filed after going through the content of the inquiry report then the authority concerned would have been in a position to actively consider the reply to the show cause. 22. It is not in dispute that consideration always means active application of mind and once a show cause notice is being issued to the concerned, it is incumbent upon the issuing authority to consider the said show cause by application of mind and the application of mind, would only to be said if the point which has been agitated in the show cause would be considered and depending upon the case either it will be rejected or it will be accepted then only it would be said to be application of mind, as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. Vrs. A. Masilamani, reported in (2013) 6 SCC 530, been pleased to hold at wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has paragraph 19, which reads hereunder as: “ “19. The word “consider” is of great significance. The dictionary meaning of the same is, “to think over”, “to regard as”, or “deem to be”. Hence, there is a clear connotation to the effect that there must be active application of mind. In other words, the term “consider” postulates consideration of all relevant aspects of a matter. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory authority should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material available on record. The order of Page 16 of 19 the authority itself should reveal such application of mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority and proceed to affirm its order.” It is evident from the impugned order passed by Respondent No. 3 that although there is reference of reply furnished by writ petition to the show cause notice but the same has not been found to be satisfactory and consequently the petitioner has been blacklisted and wad debarred from executing all the contract work awarded to it, further, the security deposited for all the work was forfeited, thus, we are of the considered view that the reply furnished by the writ petitioner to the explanation sought for cannot be construed to be consideration of the reply. As a consequence, the impugned order has to be held to be suffering from the evil of not following the principles of natural justice and further to be suffering from the vice of arbitrariness. The aforesaid principle of law has been dealt with by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the judgment rendered in the case of M/s. Umesh Chandra Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 1999 (1) B.L.J 548. The Division Bench, after holding as above has gone to the extent of, by taking reliance of the judgment rendered in the case of Ramnandan Prasad & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 1983 PLJR 266, laying down the principle that when initial order cancelling the license is invalid, such invalidity cannot be cured by the fact that the petitioners had an opportunity to say whatever they would have to say before the appellate or the revisional authority H.L. Trehan and Ors. Vrs. Union of India and Ors., reported in AIR 1989 Supreme Court 568, The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of wherein it has been laid down that a post-decisional hearing will not cure defect of not affording pre-decisional hearing. Page 17 of 19 23. This Court in view of the aforesaid principle as indicated hereinabove and considering the fact as has been admitted in Paragraph 19 in the counter affidavit that the copy of the Inquiry Report has not been supplied and further even the State is admitting the fact that the decision to blacklist the writ petitioner has been taken on the basis of the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer and as such this Court is of the view that non-supply of the Inquiry Report before passing the order of blacklisting since goes to the root of the issue and further it has been contended further in the Inquiry Report, the copy of the report of the expert which has been appended Page 62, 65 and 67 of the counter affidavit wherefrom it is evident that even the expert has given opinion with respect to the fault in the design. 24. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the supply of the Inquiry Report basis upon the show cause has been issued also bear importance. 25. As such, the non-supply of the said Inquiry Report is the reason to interfere with the impugned order. 26. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.06.2024 is quashed and set aside. 27. The matter is remitted before the Chief Engineer, Central Division Organization, to supply the copy of the Inquiry Report within 2 weeks. 28. The petitioner has undertaken to respond along with the fresh show cause and to submit response within the period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of such notice. 29. The concerned respondent (Chief Engineer, C.D.O.) is to take final decision, in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order passed by this Court within a further period of three weeks. 30. The follow up action will be taken upon the final outcome of the decision which is to be taken by the authority concerned. Page 18 of 19 31. Accordingly, the instant writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4183 of 2024 is disposed of. 32. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Samarth/A.F.R. Page 19 of 19