IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SANJAY KAROL, PARTHA SARTHY, JJ.
Abha Chaudhary, Proprietor of the Firms Ganpati Drugs – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20505 of 2021
Decided on : 03-01-2023
Certiorari - Blacklisting of Firm - The court quashed the order blacklisting the petitioner's firm for five years due to lack of proof of notice to show cause and absence of reference to such notice in the impugned order. The court allowed the petition and directed the petitioner to cooperate in the proceedings for a fresh order to be passed with reasons within two weeks.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order blacklisting the petitioner's firm for five years and a writ of mandamus to restore the previous status of the firm.
Finding of the Court:
The court quashed the impugned order due to lack of proof of notice to show cause and absence of reference to such notice in the order. The court allowed the petition and provided directions for a fresh order to be passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Issues: Validity of the order blacklisting the petitioner's firm, lack of proof of notice to show cause, and absence of reference to such notice in the impugned order.
Ratio Decidendi: The lack of proof of notice to show cause and absence of reference to such notice in the impugned order led to the quashing of the order blacklisting the petitioner's firm.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed. The court provided directions for a fresh order to be passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
1. Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the impugned order dated 09.11.2021, passed by respondent no.4, namely the Superintendent, Nalanda Medical College and Hospital, Patna, (Annexure-18, page 46) needs to be quashed, for even though the respondents alleged to have issued notice to show cause and the petitioner to have responded thereto, but however, in the absence of any proof thereof and non-reference of such fact in the impugned order and the specific averments made by the petitioner in paragraph no. 28 of the petition to the effect that he was never issued any show cause notice, we quash and set aside the order dated 09.11.2021, passed by respondent no.4, namely the Superintendent, Nalanda Medical College and Hospital, Patna, (Annexure-18, page 46), whereby the petitioner stands blacklisted for a period of five years.
3. The order blacklisting the petitioner entails civil and penal consequences. Also, there is natural justice.
4. As such, the petition is allowed with the following mutually agreeable directions:-
(b) Petitioner shall make himself available in the office of Respondent No. 4, namely, the Superintendent, Nalanda Medical College and Hospital, Patna on 16th of January, 2023 at 10:30 A.M., when a date shall be fixed enabling the petitioner to present his case;
(c) The petitioner shall fully cooperate in the proceedings;
(d) After affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, a fresh order, assigning reasons, shall be passed by the said officer within a period of two weeks thereafter;
(e) The order assigning reasons shall be communicated to the petitioner;
(f) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to such alternative remedies as are otherwise available in accordance with law;
(g) We are hopeful that as and when petitioner takes recourse to such remedies, as are otherwise available in law, before the appropriate forum, the same shall be dealt with, in accordance with law and with reasonable dispatch;
(h) Also, liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the Court, should the need so arise subsequently on the same and subsequent cause of action.
5. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
The lack of procedural fairness, including the absence of proof of notice to show cause, can lead to the quashing of administrative orders with civil and penal consequences.
Violation of principles of natural justice and absence of proof of notice to show cause can lead to the quashing of an order.
Indefinite blacklisting without defined duration and proper procedural fairness is arbitrary, violating natural justice principles and requiring a clear basis for such action.
Point of law : Before proposing to pass a black listing order or debarring orders the parties had to be given hearing followed by an appropriate reasoned order.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a fair hearing, specific show cause notices, and proportionate punishment before imposing blacklisting in government contracts.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.