Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 553 (MP)

K. D. Transport (M/s) v. State of M. P.

2018-06-25

S.C.SHARMA

body2018
ORDER 1. The petitioner before this Court has filed present petition being aggrieved by order dated 11.5.2018 by which the petitioner has been blacklisted for the period of ten years by the M. P. State Civil Supplies Corporation. 2. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner is a transporter and is registered as a firm with the Registrar, Firms and Society, Ujjain and a tender was floated by the respondent Corporation for the year 2017-19 for transportation of goods. The petitioner's tender was accepted and the petitioner started carrying out the work. 3. On 27.4.2018, a show cause notice (Annex.-P-9) was issued to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner is not lifting the material and the petitioner did submit a reply and categorically submitted in his reply that at no point of time he has said no in respect of lifting of material, however, requested the authorities to provide free access to the place where the material was stored. 4. The reply was submitted on 3.5.2018. In spite of their being a reply by the petitioner to lift the material in case it was not lifted, the impugned order has been passed on 11.5.2018 blacklisting the petitioner for ten years. The order blacklisting the petitioner does not refer to the show cause notice and does not refer to any reply filed by the petitioner. Straightaway by referring certain clauses of tender, the competent authority has passed the impugned order blacklisting the petitioner for ten years. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents have argued before this Court that its a contractual matter and, therefore, petition is not at all maintainable and there is also an arbitration clause. 6. It is true that normally in contractual matters, writ petitions are not maintainable as there are disputed question of facts and also there is a remedy of arbitration and normally where the remedy of arbitration is available, writ petitions are not entertained. However, there is no specific bar that this Court cannot entertain a writ petition in contractual matter or where there is an arbitration clause. 7. In the present case there is a total violation of principles of natural justice and fair play. However, there is no specific bar that this Court cannot entertain a writ petition in contractual matter or where there is an arbitration clause. 7. In the present case there is a total violation of principles of natural justice and fair play. The impugned order does not reflect show cause notice nor there is any whisper about the reply filed by the petitioner and, therefore, as the respondents have violated principles of natural justice and fair play, the impugned order deserves to be quashed by this Court. 8. The apex Court in the case of M/s. Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd.v. State of West Bengal and another, reported in (1975) 1 SCC 70 , in paragraph No. 20 and 21 has held as under : “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. 21. With regard to the case of the petitioners, it is made clear that the authorities will give an opportunity to the petitioners to represent their case, and the authorities will hear the petitioners as to whether their name should be put on the blacklist or not. This is made clear that the decision on this question will not have any effect on the proceedings pending in Calcutta High Court where the petitioner has challenged the adjudication proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act. Any decision of the authorities on the blacklisting will have no effect on the correctness of any of the facts involved in those proceedings.” 9. In light of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 11.5.2018 is hereby quashed. However, the competent authority shall be free to issue a proper show cause notice to the petitioner and shall grant opportunity to the petitioner to file a reply. The competent authority after hearing the petitioner shall be free to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid, writ petitions stands allowed.