Back
2024 Supreme(Pat) 216
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, C.J., HARISH KUMAR, J
Naveen Kumar Son of Lilanand Jha – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3995 of 2024
Decided on : 02-04-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Anjani Kumar, Sr. Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
A show-cause notice in quasi-judicial proceedings must inform the noticee of the specific grounds for action and the potential consequences, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
BLACKLISTING - TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTOR - SECTION 420 IPC, SECTION 7 ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT - The court discussed the legal provisions regarding blacklisting and the necessity of a fair show-cause notice. It emphasized that a show-cause notice must inform the noticee of the proposed action and the grounds for it, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice. The court found that the respondent Corporation failed to provide a proper show-cause notice, leading to the conclusion that the blacklisting and rescinding of the agreement were untenable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Transportation-cum-Handling Contractor, was blacklisted for five years and had his agreement rescinded by the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation after an FIR was lodged against him for alleged black marketing of food grains. The petitioner contended that the FIR was the sole basis for the punitive action and that he had not been given a fair opportunity to defend himself.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent Corporation did not provide a proper show-cause notice detailing the proposed actions or consequences of the petitioner's alleged misconduct. The court emphasized the importance of a fair procedure and the need for the authority to consider the petitioner's explanation before taking punitive action.
Issues: Whether the respondent Corporation acted in accordance with the principles of natural justice in blacklisting the petitioner and rescinding the agreement without a proper show-cause notice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a show-cause notice must clearly state the grounds for action and the proposed consequences, ensuring that the noticee has a fair opportunity to respond. The absence of such a notice rendered the punitive actions taken against the petitioner invalid.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order of blacklisting and rescinding the agreement, directing the respondent Corporation to issue a fresh show-cause notice and consider the petitioner's defense before making any further decisions.
JUDGMENT :
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
Heard Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned senior Advocate for the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation (herein after referred to as ‘Corporation’).
2. The petitioner by filing the present writ petition seek quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 2469 dated 03.12.2021 issued under the signature of respondent no. 5 whereby, the petitioner who was working as Transportation-cum-Handling Contractor is black listed for five years after rescinding the agreement with the forfeiture of the security deposit and bank guarantee. In addition to that a decision has also been taken to realize the loss of food grain to the tune of Rs. 2,30,594.28/-apart from a direction to restrain the petitioner from making use of his private vehicle for transportation in distribution of food grains in PDS shop.
3. At the outset, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits across the Bar that during the pendency of the writ petition, the period of agreement has already been expired and the respondent Corporation has floated a fresh tender vide NIT No. 272 dated 27.01.2024 leading to appointment of new bidders. The petitioner, hence is not pressing the writ petition with respect to the relief against cancellation of his contract.
4. It is thus submitted that the petitioner having been selected as a Transportation-cum-Handling Contractor for door step delivery of transportation of food grains in the district of Madhubani entered into an agreement with the Corporation on 02.03.2021. The copy of the agreement is produced as Annexure – P/3. While the petitioner was discharging the assignment in terms of the agreement, an FIR was instituted against the PDS dealer and the petitioner along with other officials on 30.05.221 being Madhepura P.S. Case No. 83 of 2021 for the offences under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
5. The allegation as narrated in the FIR reveals that the food grains carried in the vehicle bearing Registration No. BR32GB-3954 was diverted for black marketing. After lodging of the FIR show-cause notice as contained in Letter No. 842 dated 31.05.2021 has been issued seeking explanation from the petitioner. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his show-cause reply narrating all the facts in support of his defense.
6. Another letter was also issued by the Deputy Managing Director vide Memo No. 848 dated 01.06.2021 directing the petitioner to explain regarding GPS location and the movement of his vehicle, the copy of which is produced as Annexure – P/7. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegation, the copy of which is also marked as Annexure – P/8.
7. Adverting to the aforesaid facts, learned senior Advocate vigorously contended that irrespective of detailed show-cause reply/explanation, the respondent Corporation without making any enquiry stayed the agreement of the petitioner with immediate effect and the work assigned to the petitioner was handed over to other transportation Contractor vide Letter No. 856 dated 03.06.2021. The respondent Corporation further, without any notice to show-cause, issued impugned Memo No. 2469 dated 03.12.2021 inflicting the order of black listing and rescinding the agreement of the petitioner with the Corporation only on the basis of lodgement of Madhepura P.S. Case No. 83 of 2021.
8. Learned Senior Advocate further argued that the very basis of the impugned order is the FIR noted hereinabove, wherein, a final report has been submitted and the petitioner has not even been sent up for trial for want of evidence, which report has also been accepted by the jurisdictional Court. The copy of which is marked as Annexure – P/11.
9. In the aforesaid premise, the learned Senior Advocate submits that once the very basis of the impugned order does not exist, the black listing of the petitioner, forfeiture of the
