The authority must provide a reasoned decision based on substantial evidence before imposing penalties; procedural fairness is essential in administrative actions.

JUDGMENT :

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY)

1. Heard Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Rakesh Kumar Samrendra for the petitioner, Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh for the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’) and Mr. Alok Kumar Rahi, learned counsel for the State of Bihar.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ application praying for quashing the order contained in Memo no.1841 dated 5.10.2024 whereby the respondents were pleased to cancel the agreement entered into between the Corporation and the petitioner, blacklisted the petitioner for a period of five years and further ordered that the security money to the tune of Rs.5 lacs and the Bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.10 lacs shall both stand forfeited. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to take into consideration the submission of final form in connection with Madhepura P.S Case no.83 of 2021 wherein the petitioner was not sent up and for other reliefs.

3. The facts in brief are that the respondent-Corporation came out with a Notice Inviting Tender no.5784 on 8.7.2020 for the purpose of selection of Transportation-cum- Handling Contractors for transportation of foodgrains in the District of Madhubani. The petitioner having participated in the bid was successful and an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the Corporation on 2.3.2021. It further transpires from the records of the case that having received secret information about black-marketing being done, a raid was conducted as a result of which the Block Supply Officer, Madhepura with the assistance of the police personnel was able to seize 212 sacks of grain meant for purpose of black- marketing and which led to registration of an F.I.R being Madhepura P.S Case no.83 of 2021.

4. A show-cause notice dated 31.5.2021 was issued to the petitioner and on receipt of his reply, which was not found to be satisfactory, the agreement entered into by the Corporation with the petitioner was cancelled and he was blacklisted for a period of five years. It was further ordered that the sum of Rs.5 lacs deposited by way of security money and Rs.10 lacs of Bank guarantee would both stand forfeited.

5. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner moved this Court in CWJC no.3995 of 2024. By order dated 2.4.2024, the writ application was allowed setting aside the order impugned with a direction to the respondent to issue a fresh show-cause notice to the petitioner, to consider the reply filed by him and to pass a reasoned and speaking order taking into consideration the defence of the petitioner.

6. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 2.4.2024 passed in CWJC no.3995 of 2024, a fresh show-cause notice was served on the petitioner on 13.5.2024. The same was followed by another notice dated 24.8.2024 sent by the District Officer-cum-Chairman, District Transport Committee, Madhubani asking the petitioner to show-cause as to why the agreement be not cancelled and the Bank guarantee and security money be not forfeited after blacklisting the petitioner for having violated Clause 4(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of the NIT. The petitioner filed his reply.

7. Taking into consideration the contents of the reply of the petitioner as also the documents enclosed with the same, a detailed order contained in Memo no.1841 dated 5.10.2024 (impugned herein) was passed by the Members of the District Tran