2014 Supreme(Raj) 1463

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
P.K.Lohra, J.
M/s. Nayak Construction - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and others - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12921 of 2012.
Decided On : 21-05-2014

The principles of natural justice require that a person be given a fair hearing before being adversely affected by a decision, but this requirement may be circumscribed in certain circumstances, such as when the facts are admitted and only one conclusion is possible.

Headnote:

PUBLIC WORKS - BLACKLISTING - MISBEHAVIOUR - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - MALAFIDE - CONTRACTOR - PUBLIC WORKS FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTS RULES - APPENDIX XVI PART II SECTION VIII - STANDARD CODE PARA VIII.4 - INTERPRETATION - JUDICIAL REVIEW - EVIDENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF - CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP - STATUTORY RULES - SHOW CAUSE NOTICE - REPLY - TIME PERIOD - ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE - COURIER SERVICES - REGISTERED AD - PROOF OF RECEIPT - FINDINGS OF FACT - JUDICIAL DISCRETION - EQUITABLE JURISDICTION - CLEAN HANDS DOCTRINE - CONDUCT OF PARTIES - RELEVANCE - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SCOPE - ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION - JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE - EXTENT - NATURAL JUSTICE - APPLICABILITY - CIRCUMSTANCES - ADMITTED FACTS - SINGLE CONCLUSION - PENALTY - DISCRETION OF COURT - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - FUTILITY - ENCROACHMENT - REMOVAL - URGENCY - PUBLIC PLACES - PUBLIC CONVENIENCE - TIME-CONSUMING PROCEDURES - MALAFIDE ALLEGATIONS - SUBSTANTIATION - BURDEN OF PROOF - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SCOPE - CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP - STATUTORY RULES - SHOW CAUSE NOTICE - REPLY - TIME PERIOD - ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE - COURIER SERVICES - REGISTERED AD - PROOF OF RECEIPT - FINDINGS OF FACT - JUDICIAL DISCRETION - EQUITABLE JURISDICTION - CLEAN HANDS DOCTRINE - CONDUCT OF PARTIES - RELEVANCE - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SCOPE - ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION - JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE - EXTENT - NATURAL JUSTICE - APPLICABILITY - CIRCUMSTANCES - ADMITTED FACTS - SINGLE CONCLUSION - PENALTY - DISCRETION OF COURT - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - FUTILITY - ENCROACHMENT - REMOVAL - URGENCY - PUBLIC PLACES - PUBLIC CONVENIENCE - TIME-CONSUMING PROCEDURES - MALAFIDE ALLEGATIONS - SUBSTANTIATION - BURDEN OF PROOF

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a proprietorship firm and 'AA' Class Contractor with the Public Works Department (PWD), challenged the order blacklisting it for misbehavior with government officials under Appendix XVI Part II Section VIII of the Standard Code Para VIII.4 of the Public Works Financial and Accounts Rules. The petitioner alleged malafide intent, violation of natural justice principles, and improper service of the show cause notice. The respondents defended their action, citing the petitioner's consistent misbehavior, criminal charges against its proprietor, and failure to submit a timely reply to the show cause notice.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's proprietor had engaged in serious misbehavior, including committing cognizable offenses at the residence of a government official. It held that the show cause notice was properly served and that the petitioner had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that its reply was received by the competent authority. The court also rejected the petitioner's allegations of malafide intent, finding no concrete evidence to support them.

Issues: 1. Whether the blacklisting of the petitioner firm violated the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the show cause notice was properly served and whether the petitioner's reply was received by the competent authority? 3. Whether the respondents' action was motivated by malafide intent?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the principles of natural justice were not violated in this case. It noted that the petitioner had been given a show cause notice and an opportunity to respond, and that the competent authority had considered the petitioner's reply before making its decision. The court also found that the petitioner's conduct amounted to misbehavior within the meaning of the Public Works Financial and Accounts Rules, justifying the blacklisting. 2. The court found that the show cause notice was properly served on the petitioner firm through Registered AD. It also held that the petitioner had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that its reply was received by the competent authority. The court noted that the petitioner had chosen to send its reply through courier services, which was not an approved method of communication according to the Public Works Department. 3. The court rejected the petitioner's allegations of malafide intent, finding no concrete evidence to support them. It held that the respondents' action was taken in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Public Works Financial and Accounts Rules and that there was no evidence of any ulterior motive.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the blacklisting of the petitioner firm.