IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CWJC No.16338 of 2008

Saraswaty Press Limited 11 B.T. Road, Kolkata represented through its

authorized signatory Rajan Rastogi S/o-Sri. Ramesh Prasad Rastogi,

Resident of-Pati Gali, Nai Sarak Chowk, P.S.-City Chowk, Patna City,

District-Patna.

………Petitioner

Versus

1. The Bihar School Examination Board through its Chairman, Sinha

Library Road, Patna.

2. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.

3. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.

4. The Deputy Secretary (Stores), Bihar School Examination Board,

Patna.

……..Respondents.

-----------

For the Petitioner

:

Mr. Tara Kant Jha, Sr. Adv.

:

Mr. Anjani Kumar Singha, Adv.

For the Respondent B.S.E.B

:

Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Adv.

:

Mr. Piyush Lall, Adv.

------------

03.

01.04.2009

Petitioner is a Press at Kolkata and

undertakes printing of security documents. It had

accepted orders of the Bihar School Examination

Board, Patna for printing answer books and draft

papers for the Matriculation and Senior Secondary

School Examination, 2008. It is not in dispute that

there was slight delay in printing and supplying papers

which of course did not in any way upset the

examination schedule. At different stages, petitioner

was asked for explanation with regard to the delay and

the

quality

of

papers.

Petitioner

offered

his

2

explanation. Subsequently the total amount of papers

that was required to be supplied were also reduced and

later on petitioner’s explanation having not been found

satisfactory, it was rejected and petitioner had been

black listed for a period of five years.

Counter affidavit has been filed with

rejoinders and with the consent of the parties, the writ

application is being disposed of at this stage itself.

Mr. Tara Kant Jha, learned senior counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that a

bare reference to the alleged show cause would show

that those communications did not at any point of time

or in any manner indicate as to for what purpose

explanations were being sought for, as, it said, it was

for necessary action but what action under what

provision was never disclosed. This was not in

compliance of natural justice.

This, he submitted in addition to various

other pleas taken by him on facts to justify that the

stand of the Respondent Board was not correct. It was

inter alia pointed out that where the paper was tested,

which paper was tested nothing was disclosed to the

petitioner before or at the time of testing. It was

further submitted that unreasonably the payment has

been withheld. Further punishment as such even if the

3

facts as found are correct is disproportionate.

In my view, all these considerations are

matter which the authority at the first instance has to

consider. However, the writ petition must succeed on a

very short issue. As noticed above, none of the so

called show cause notices disclose as to for what

purpose the show cause was being issued or what is

the nature of proceeding and what is going to be the

result.

In that view of the matter, it amounts to

non-disclosure of the nature of punishment to follow.

Only thing that I can do is refer to the Judgment of the

Apex Court in the case of S.L. Kapoor versus

Jagmohan and others since reported in AIR 1981

Supreme Court 136 wherein in paragraph 16 it has

been held thus.

“The requirements of natural justice are

met only if opportunity to represent is given in view of

proposed action. The demands of natural justice are

not met even if the very person proceeded against has

furnished the information on which the action is based,

if it is furnished in a casual way or for some other

purpose. The person proceeded against must know

that he is being required to meet the allegations which

might lead to a certain action being taken against him.