Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 262 (JHR)

Saheb Traders v. State of Jharkhand

2020-02-10

S.N.PRASAD

body2020
ORDER : S.N. Prasad, J. 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and where under, order as contained in memo no. 1063 dated 13.06.2013 passed by the Inspector General of Prisons, Ranchi as also letter no. 922 dated 15.06.2013, whereby petitioner has been informed that in view of letter dated 13.06.2013, the petitioner has been blacklisted, are under challenge. 2. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of blacklisting has been passed without issuance of any show cause notice and as such the same is in violation of principles of natural justice, hence is not sustainable in the eye of law. 3. Respondents-State has filed affidavit stating inter alia therein that the show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner and thereafter order of blacklisting has been passed, hence the impugned decision suffers from no infirmity. 4. This Court, having heard learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the rival submissions has found some admitted fact, as would be evident from the record, to the effect that the petitioner was supplier of food-grains in the different prisons. The writ petitioner in pursuance to the valid supply order has supplied 'Datwan' etc. for the year 2004-05 but some dispute has been raised by the respondents-authorities about excess payment made in favour of the petitioner. In consequence thereof, the said authority issued show cause notice to the petitioner asking explanation as to why recovery be not made for excess payment, to which, the petitioner replied, but having not satisfied with the said reply the writ petitioner has been held to be involved in corrupt practices. In consequence of such finding, the petitioner has been listed under list of blacklisted supplier vide order dated 13.06.2013, which has been communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 15.06.2013, which are impugned in this writ petition. 5. The ground for assailing the impugned order is violation of principles of natural justice, which has seriously been objected by learned counsel for the respondents-State taking a plea of issuance of show cause notice and reply furnished by the writ petitioner. 6. This Court on close scrutiny of office order no. 5. The ground for assailing the impugned order is violation of principles of natural justice, which has seriously been objected by learned counsel for the respondents-State taking a plea of issuance of show cause notice and reply furnished by the writ petitioner. 6. This Court on close scrutiny of office order no. 1063 dated 13.06.2013 has found there from that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner asking explanation about the excess payment in supply of 'Datwan' as the petitioner has initially agreed to supply 'Datwan' at the rate of 18/- per hundred but while submitting final bill the petitioner submitted bill at the rate of 18/- per dozen and as such explanation was sought for from the petitioner, to which, the petitioner replied which has been found not satisfactory. It further appears from the record that no show cause notice was issued by the respondents-authorities as to why the writ petitioner be not blacklisted. It is settled principles of law that blacklisting is a major punishment as such the same is to be inflicted only after providing opportunity of hearing. Show cause notice means providing an opportunity of hearing and opportunity of hearing is only be said to be proper if a specific averment regarding proposed punishment is reflected therein so that the aggrieved may know about proposed action, which is to be taken. Admittedly, herein show cause notice has been issued for recovery of the excess amount but no show cause has been issued for imposition of penalty of blacklisting. 7. This Court, after going through the impugned order as also the averments made in the counter affidavit is of the view that order of blacklisting being a major punishment and as such is required to be passed only after providing opportunity of hearing but no such show cause notice has been issued before taking the decision of blacklisting, hence, the impugned order dated 13.06.2013 and also communication dated 15.06.2013 are not sustainable to the extent whereby and where under the petitioner has been blacklisted and is liable to quashed and set aside to that extent only. 8. Accordingly, the matter is remitted before the Inspector General of Prison, Ranchi to take appropriate decision after providing opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the matter is remitted before the Inspector General of Prison, Ranchi to take appropriate decision after providing opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. It is made clear that the Inspector General of Prison, Ranchi is directed to issue show cause notice to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order mentioning therein the specific date for furnishing the reply by the writ petitioner. In turn, the petitioner is directed to submit reply within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of show cause notice. Upon receipt of such reply, the respondents-authorities shall take appropriate decision within a further period of three weeks from the date of receipt of such reply. 9. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent, as indicated herein above.