Order On Board

09/05/2022

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner company is engaged in the business of supply of medicines. In response to NIT dated 9.9.2019 issued by respondents, petitioner company participated in tender process and was declared successful. Pursuant to the supply orders issued by respondents, petitioner company supplied requisite medicines mentioned therein. After lapse of some time from supply of medicines, respondents issued show cause notice dated 3.3.2022 (Annexure P-10) to petitioner calling upon to explain as to why petitioner company be not blacklisted for a period of three years. Immediately on 17.3.2022 petitioner submitted reply to show-cause notice, which was sent to respondents through their email address. As per report generated in computer, reply sent by petitioner has been received in the office of respondent Corporation, but without considering reply of the petitioner, impugned order has been passed blacklisting petitioner company for a period of three years. He submits that in the impugned order itself it is mentioned that show-cause notice was issued to petitioner but petitioner failed to submit reply, which is not correct based on Annexure P-11 & P-12. As impugned order of blacklisting of petitioner, which is having civil consequence, is passed without considering reply of petitioner to show-cause notice, the same be quashed.

2. Learned counsel for respondents submits that as per instructions received, he does not dispute factual submission of learned counsel for petitioner that show-cause notice was issued to petitioner and the same was replied by petitioner through email. However he submits that reply forwarded by petitioner through email was not received by the Competent Authority dealing with the issue, therefore, it could not be taken into consideration.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed along with writ petition.

4. There is no dispute that petitioner was served with show-cause notice dated 3.3.2022 asking him to submit reply on the allegations levelled therein within 15 days. It is also not disputed by learned counsel for respondents that in pursuance of show- cause notice, petitioner submitted reply in time i.e. on 17.3.2022, which was received through email in the office of respondents. If any reply to show-cause notice mentioning the subject is received by any section of the department, it is expected from that section to place the same before appropriate authority, who is in seisin of matter under show-cause notice. This has not been done by concerned section of respondent Department. Perusal of the order impugned would show that Competent Authority has passed the order recording that petitioner has not responded to show- cause notice and blacklisted the petitioner company for a period of three years. Order of blacklisting is having civil consequences which is passed without considering the say of petitioner in its reply.

5. In the above facts and circumstances where petitioner had timely responded to show-cause notice; the same has been received in the respondent department, this Court is of the considered view that it will meet the ends of justice if respondents are directed to pass order afresh considering reply dated 17.3.2022 submitted by petitioner to show-cause notice.

6. Consequently, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated

13.4.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 is hereby set aside. However, respondents will be at liberty to pass order afresh on show-cause notice after considering reply submitted by petitioner company dated 17.3.2022 expeditiously.