Back
2011 Supreme(Del) 91
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
S. Muralidhar, J.
Appellants: Shoghi Communications Ltd.
Vs.
Respondent: Union of India (UOI) and Anr.
W.P.(C) 5547/2007 and CM Appl 10273/2007
Decided On: 20.01.2011
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/plaintiff: H.L. Tiku, Sr. Adv., Ravi Kumar Aggarwal and Bindu Monga, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: Jatan Singh, Adv.
The court upheld the blacklisting of the Petitioner based on the seriousness of the charges and the importance of national security.
Headnote:
Blacklisting - National Security - IPC, Customs Act - Section 420, 511, 469, 471 IPC, T-1285 Customs Act - The court discussed the blacklisting of the Petitioner based on chargesheeted offenses under Section 420, 511, 469, 471 IPC and the Customs Act. The court highlighted the importance of national security and the seriousness of the charges against the Petitioner, leading to the decision to cease all dealings with the company.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner was blacklisted based on chargesheeted offenses under Section 420, 511, 469, 471 IPC and the Customs Act. The Petitioner challenged the blacklisting on grounds of violation of natural justice and indefinite duration.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the blacklisting was justified based on the seriousness of the charges and the national security implications. The court also found that the principles of natural justice were not violated and the blacklisting was not indefinite.
Issues: Violation of natural justice, Indefinite blacklisting
Ratio Decidendi: The blacklisting was justified based on the seriousness of the charges and national security concerns. The principles of natural justice were not violated, and the blacklisting was not indefinite.
Final Decision: The writ petition and the pending application were dismissed.
S. Muralidhar, J.
1. This is the second round of litigation concerning the blacklisting of the Petitioner by an order dated 9th July 2005 issued by the Directorate General of Military Intelligence ("DGMI?) and the consequential order dated 19th September 2005 issued by the Ministry of Defence ("MOD?) stating that on advice from the National Security Council Secretariat "it would be desirable to avoid any contact with M/s Shogi Communications Ltd ("SCL?)" and Mr. Harish Gupta.
2. Information was received from the Central Bureau of Investigation ("CBI?) on 11th May 2005 about Mr. Harish Gupta, Director (R&D) of the Petitioner SCL having been chargesheeted in CBI case No. RC 9(S)/96-DLI for offences under Section 420 read with Section 511 IPC and Section 469 and 471 IPC in 1996. The said communication pointed out that the allegation against Mr. Harish Gupta was that "he forged/used an End User Certificate purported to have been issued by Communication Directorate of NSG for importing two systems T-1285 Customs Act including Key Generation Programme OPG-2002 and crypts fill Device CFD-2001 during the year 1995-96. The offence came to light when the said End User Certificate was referred back by authorities to NSG for some changes." This led to an order dated 4th July 2005 being issued by the office of the IFA (Army/M) addressed to the DGMI that SCL and its two sister companies, Secure Telecom Pvt. Ltd. (STPL) and Sidhi Tech Services Ltd. (STSL) should be deleted from the vendor list and all transactions with the three companies should be stopped forthwith.
3. The Petitioner challenged the validity of the CBI?s communication dated 11th May 2005, the order dated 4th July 2005 of the IFA, the order dated 9th July 2005 of the DGMI and the consequential order dated 19th September 2005 of the MOD blacklisting the Petitioner, by filing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1815 of 2007 in this Court. In that writ petition the principal grounds of challenge were that the orders were passed without issuing any notice to the Petitioner and, therefore, were violative of principles of natural justice and that the blacklisting was for an indefinite period.
4. The aforementioned Writ Petition (C) No. 1815 of 2007 was disposed of by an order dated 9th March 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:
The Petitioner is aggrieved by these orders/communications on the ground that these orders amount to virtual blacklisting without any fixed duration. Secondly, the blacklisting has been done without following the principles of natural justice i.e., without issuing any notice to the Petitioner.
The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that he is not admitting the fact that no notice was issued to the Petitioner. However, the Respondents would be willing to give a hearing to the Petitioner so that all the aspects which the Petitioner seeks to agitate before this Court with regard to its blacklisting can be raised before the appropriate authority.
This writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the Petitioner shall make a representation within a week to the Ministry of Defence through Respondent No. 2 and, thereafter, the Respondents shall nominate the appropriate authority before whom the Petitioner may appear for a personal hearing. This would be done within 2 weeks thereafter. An appropriate order would be passed within 14 days after the date of hearing. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The order shall clearly indicate as to whether it concurs with the impugned orders/communications or not.
5. Consequent upon the above orders, SCL made a detailed representation and was also given a hearing on 4th April 2007. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 19th April 2007 the Special Secretary in the MOD passed a detailed order affirming the blacklisting of the Petitioner.
6. Mr. H.L. Tiku, learned Senior counse
