The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the principle of audi alteram partem in administrative actions, particularly in the context of issuing show-cause notices and blacklisting contractors.

S.K. Gangele, J.

1. Petitioner has filed this petition against showcause notice dated 14/07/2016 Annexure P/13. The petitioner also prayed a relief that the respondents be directed to make payment to the petitioner and also claimed other reliefs.

2. The petitioner is a partnership firm. It is in the business of construction. Water Resources Department, Sagar invited tenders for construction of Earthen Dam and Canal in the year of 2013 under Siraswaha Tank Scheme in Panna district. The petitioner offered its tender, it was approved and an agreement was executed in terms of the tender document. The petitioner completed the work of construction of Dam and possession of Dam was handed over by the petitioner. The payment of the petitioner was not released. Hence, the petitioner wrote a letter on 06/07/2016 requesting the authority to release the amount which was due to the petitioner in pursuance to the construction of dam.

3. There was a heavy rainfall in Panna District, hence some portion of the Dam which was constructed by the petitioner was damaged. On 08/07/2016 Sub-Divisional Officer, Runj Project Canal Sub-Division Water Resources Department Panna lodged a complaint at the police station Brijpur Satna stating that in the intervening night between 06/07/2016 and 07/07/2016 some anti-social persons of the village had broken the boundary wall of Sirsaha Dam and had caused loss to the Government property by damaging the Dam. Copy of the report has been filed by the petitioner along with the petition as Annexure P/11. On 10/07/2016, the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department Panna wrote a letter to the petitioner that between 06/07/2016 and 07/07/2016 due to heavy rainfall in Panna District Sirsaha Dam was damaged, hence, the petitioner has to repair the damage immediately. On 14/07/2016, the Chief Engineer Sagar issued a show-cause notice dated 14/07/2016 Annexure P/13 to the petitioner mentioning the fact that the petitioner was awarded contract of construction of Dam named as Earthen Dam and Canal under Siraswaha Tank Scheme in Panna District. Dam was damaged due to heavy rainfall in the intervening night of 06/07/2016 and 07/07/2016, because the work of the petitioner was inferior quality and it was not in accordance with the norms fixed by the contract. The petitioner was directed to file reply of show-cause through the office of Executive Engineer and if the reply of the petitioner be not found satisfactory, the petitioner be blacklisted.

4. The respondents in the return raised a preliminary objection that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable because the petition has been filed against a show-cause notice. It is further pleaded in the return that there were excess rains in the area, Dam in question got damaged due to poor quality of construction in accordance with agreement executed at the time of award of contract between the petitioner and State. The petitioner is under obligation to repair the damage if it is caused during contract period or within 12 months, after issuance of completion certificate. The completion certificate has not been issued in favour of the petitioner. The construction of Dam is completed in the year 2016. The petitioner was under obligation to repair the damage. Vide letter dated 10/07/2016, the petitioner was asked by the Executive Engineer to repair the damage caused to the Dam. The petitioner in reply to the letter agreed that he would repair the dam, however, he sought assurance from the department that against the petitioner no coercive steps shall be taken by the department.

5. It is further pleaded in the return that against the Sub-Divisional Officer disciplinary inquiry was initiated and he was placed under suspension. In regard to payment due to the petitioner, the respondents pleaded in the return that they have never disputed in regard to nonpayment of running bills, however, amount could not be paid because funds were not available and the payment shall b