Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(CHH) 1052
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
M/S SHARDA OFFSET PRINTERS PVTL. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
CHHATTISGARH TEXTBOOK CORPORATION – Respondent
WPC/5883/2022
A subsequent show cause notice issued by the respondents to the petitioner in respect of receiving paper from the respondent-Corporation for the purpose of printing textbooks, which was earlier challenged and allowed by the High Court, is sustainable and not arbitrary or bad in law. The petitioner has the right to submit an explanation to the allegations made in the show cause notice, and the authorities are duty-bound to consider the explanation before taking further action.
Headnote:
SHOW CAUSE NOTICE - CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS - IRREGULARITIES - BLACKLISTING - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE - [The High Court held that a subsequent show cause notice issued by the respondents to the petitioner in respect of receiving paper from the respondent-Corporation for the purpose of printing textbooks, which was earlier challenged and allowed by the High Court, is sustainable and not arbitrary or bad in law. The petitioner has the right to submit an explanation to the allegations made in the show cause notice, and the authorities are duty-bound to consider the explanation before taking further action.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a printing company, was issued a show cause notice by the respondents, Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation, alleging irregularities and fraud in receiving paper for printing textbooks. The petitioner challenged the show cause notice, arguing that it was based on the same allegations that had been earlier considered and allowed by the High Court in a previous writ petition. The petitioner contended that the respondents were precluded from issuing a subsequent show cause notice for the same cause of action.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the earlier writ petition had only challenged the order of blacklisting passed by the respondents and had not quashed the show cause notice. The Court held that the respondents were not precluded from conducting an inquiry and proceeding in accordance with law for the alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner. The Court further held that the petitioner had the right to submit an explanation to the allegations made in the show cause notice, and the authorities were duty-bound to consider the explanation before taking further action.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondents were precluded from issuing a subsequent show cause notice for the same cause of action that had been earlier considered and allowed by the High Court in a previous writ petition. 2. Whether the petitioner had the right to submit an explanation to the allegations made in the show cause notice and whether the authorities were duty-bound to consider the explanation before taking further action.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The earlier writ petition had only challenged the order of blacklisting passed by the respondents and had not quashed the show cause notice. 2. The respondents were not precluded from conducting an inquiry and proceeding in accordance with law for the alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner had the right to submit an explanation to the allegations made in the show cause notice, and the authorities were duty-bound to consider the explanation before taking further action.
Final Decision: The High Court rejected the writ petition, reserving the right of the petitioner to submit a detailed reply to the show cause notice.
Order on Board
04/01/2023
1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing Annexure P/1 dated
14.12.2022. The impugned order is a show cause notice issued by the respondents to the petitioner in respect of receiving of the paper from the respondent-Corporation for the purpose of printing of the textbooks which were required to be supplied free of cost by the government to all the government schools operating in the State of Chhattisgarh.
2. The allegation against the petitioner seems to be that the petitioner has committed some irregularities and fraud so far as furnishing of Bank Guarantee for the purpose of receiving the papers for the printing and publication purpose. The show cause notice has been assailed on the ground that the said show cause notice has already been tested by the High Court on an earlier occasion in WPC No. 1297/2021 decided on 08.09.2021. According to the petitioner, in the said order the High Court had already considered the merits of the case and the said writ petition was allowed on merits and not on technicalities and there the writ Court had also touched upon the contents of the show cause notice on the basis of which the petitioner-Establishment was earlier blacklisted and therefore the respondents at this juncture could not have issued a subsequent show cause notice for the same cause of action in respect of the same allegation.
3. It was also the contention of the petitioner that once when the writ Court had allowed the said writ petition and which has by efflux of time attained finality, the entire action cannot be permitted to be again revived by way of a fresh show cause notice and the same therefore deserves to be interfered. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the very fact that the respondents have taken the same grounds that they had taken on the earlier occasion while blacklisting the petitioner in their show cause notice gives a clear indication that the respondents are premeditated so far as their action is concerned and in all probabilities the respondents would again blacklist the petitioner. This perhaps would not be permissible after the writ Court having allowed the writ petition on an earlier occasion in WPC No. 1297/2021.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, so far as the action on the part of the respondents to be premeditated relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “SIEMENS LTD. V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS” (2006) 12 SCC 33 and “ORYX FISHERIES PRIVATE LIMITED V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS”
(2010) 13 SCC 427.
5. Mr. Arjit Tiwari, Advocate appearing for the respondents on other hand opposing the petition submits that in fact the earlier writ petition which the petitioner is referring to was only assailing the order of blacklisting dated 02.01.2021. That it was in the context of the challenge to the order of blacklisting that the observation that has been made in WPC No. 1297/2021. It is the further contention of Mr. Tiwari, Advocate that the findings of the writ Court earlier was only qua the order of blacklisting dated 02.01.2021 and it was only the order of blacklisting dated 02.01.2021, which stood quashed. The earlier show cause notice was never under challenge, nor was it at any point of time quashed.
6. It is the contention of the respondents that they are not in any manner precluded to proceed in accordance with law for the alleged irregularities and illegalities committed by the petitioner in the course of the contractual agreement that was entered into between the parties and the writ petition at this juncture should not be entertained. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that even otherwise it is by now a well settled position of law that the scope of interference at the show cause notice stage is too minimal. The writ Court at this juncture should permit the petitioner to approach the concerned authority by submitting his explanation whatever he has to the concerned authority, who shall in
