Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 515 (JHR)

Nand Kishore Fogla v. State of Jharkhand

2007-06-27

N.N.TIWARI

body2007
ORDER :- In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 12-5-05 issued under the signature of the I.G. (Prison), Jharkhand, Ranchi (respondent No. 3) whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted on the ground that he is not able to make proper supply of the food materials and other articles to Khunti Sub-Jail. It has been contended that the impugned order has been issued without giving any prior notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It has been stated that the petitioner has been supplying the food materials and other articles in different Jails of Jharkhand since 1971 without any complain. The petitioner is completely blind and this is the only source of his livelihood. The petitioner has been supplying the food articles and other materials on being allotted the work after considering his bids and as per the decision of the Purchase Committee. However, the petitioner has been suddenly served with the impugned order blacklisting him on the allegation of non-supply of the food articles in time without issuing any prior notice to show cause and affording him any opportunity of representation or hearing. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed without giving any prior notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is violative of principles of natural justice and the same is non est. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents contesting the writ petition. However, the respondents have not denied the statement of the petitioner that he was not served with any notice and was not afforded any opportunity of hearing. 4. At the time of hearing this writ petition, learned J.C to A.G has also fairly submitted that no notice was served by the respondents before issuing the impugned order of the petitioner's blacklisting. 5. It is now well established that any order, which is prejudicial to a person and/or visits with a civil consequence, the same cannot be passed without giving him any notice or opportunity of representation/hearing. So is in the cases of blacklisting. It has been consistently held that the order of blacklisting cannot be passed without complying with the principle of natural justice. Reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in E. E. and C. Ltd. v. State of W.B., reported in AIR 1975 SC 266 . So is in the cases of blacklisting. It has been consistently held that the order of blacklisting cannot be passed without complying with the principle of natural justice. Reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in E. E. and C. Ltd. v. State of W.B., reported in AIR 1975 SC 266 . In that case the Supreme Court held as follows:- (Para 20) "Blacklisting has the effect of preventing a person from the privilege and advantage of entering into lawful relationship with the Government for purposes of gains. The fact that a disability is created by the order of blacklisting indicates that the relevant authority is to have an objective satisfaction. Fundamentals of fair play require that the person concerned should be given an opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the blacklist." 6. In view of the admitted position that the petitioner was not given any notice or opportunity of representation before issuing the impugned order, the impugned order dated 12-5-05 being violative of rule of fair play and principle of natural justice cannot sustain and is, hereby, quashed. This writ petition is allowed. Petition allowed.