Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 240 (JHR)

Ramgati Prasad Gupta v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-01-23

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

body2019
JUDGMENT Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - Heard Mr. Shresth Gautam, counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Anuj Burman, counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "(a) For quashing of the letter issued vide memo no. 696 dated 12.06.2015 under the pen and signature of Executive Engineer Rural Works Department, Work Division, Lohardaga, to the extent whereby and whereunder recommendation has been made to forfeit the Advance and Security Money submitted by the petitioner and to blacklist the company of the petitioner, although the same authority has earlier found that anti-social elements are disrupting the construction work and without providing proper security it is not possible to proceed with the work and as such the petitioner in any manner can not be held guilty for non execution of the work. (b) For a direction upon the respondents to release the security amount and the bills with appropriate cost and interest for the works already done by the petitioner as contract work could not be completed due to latches and fault on part of respondent authorities." 4. Counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the impugned order as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition, submits that by this particular order, the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondents has been terminated without issuing any notice to the petitioner and there is a recommendation to forfeit the security money and also to black list the petitioner. He submits that during the pendency of this case, the security money has been forfeited. 5. Counsel for the petitioner refers to paragraph no. 21 of the writ petition to submit that a specific statement has been made in this paragraph that no show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner prior to issuance of the impugned letter dated 12.06.2015. He refers to a judgment passed by this Court reported in 2012 SCC OnLine 425 ( Modi Projects Ltd., Ranchi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) para 21 and submits that as the impugned action has been taken in gross violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, this writ petition is maintainable and fit to be allowed as the action of the respondents is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) para 21 and submits that as the impugned action has been taken in gross violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, this writ petition is maintainable and fit to be allowed as the action of the respondents is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. Counsel for the respondents, however, during the course of argument could not dispute the statement made in para 21 of the writ petition and submits that the petitioner should have raised his grievance under Clause- 24 of the Standard Bidding Document and there is a mechanism for dispute redressal. 7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record and the judgement relied upon by the petitioner, this Court finds that admittedly no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner prior to issuance of the impugned order as contained in Annexure- 9 to this writ petition by which the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent has been cancelled. 8. Accordingly, this Court finds that this order of termination of agreement has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and fair play and hence violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India. In this view of the matter, the impugned order of termination of the agreement, as contained in Memo No. 696 dated 12.06.2015, is hereby setaside. So far as the blacklisting of the petitioner is concerned, the impugned order contains only a recommendation and is not the final order. 9. Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of argument, has submitted that the security money has already been forfeited by the respondents during the pendency of this writ petition. Accordingly, it is observed that the forfeiture of the security money, if any, will ultimately depend upon the result of the fresh order that may be passed by the respondent no. 3. 10. As this order is being passed on account of violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, it will be open to the respondent no. 3 to issue a show-cause to the petitioner and proceed accordingly and pass fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 11. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions .