IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1607 (M/S) of 2007 Rajendra Kumar S/o Late Sri Munna Lal, R/o Mohalla Dilla Singh Near Singhal Medical Store, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. ….Petitioner Vs State of Uttaranchal through Secretary Local Cell/ Nagar Panchayat, Dehradun. …..Respondents Dated: - 07-05-2008 Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard Sri M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate with Sri D.N.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State and Sri Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following reliefs:- (A) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quashing the order dated 4-10-2006 passed by respondent No.3, which is Annexure No.2 to this writ petition. (B) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give the effect of the order dated 4-10-2006 (Annexure No.2) and follow the G.O. No. 469/V/”k0 fo0/ 166 ¼lk 0½/2003, Dehradun March 8-2006. (C) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to stay the effect of the impugned order dated 4-10-2006. 2 (D) To issue any suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (E) To award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner is a recognized contractor of Nagar Palika Parishad Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. The respondent- Nagar Palika gave a work contract to the petitioner of Rs. 26,15,382/- for construction of Nala from the house of Munna Balmiki to canal and for that purpose a contract was also executed between the Nagar Palika and the petitioner on 18-2-2006. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the cancellation order of the contract and agreement, which was cancelled by the respondent No.3 i.e. Chairman Nagar Palika Parishad Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar without giving opportunity of hearing. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has deployed the raw material on the site of the work place but due to heavy water pool of the Nala area, the work could not be completed, then, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent No.2 i.e. Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad Jaspur for extension of time according to the G.O. No. 469/V/”k0 fo0/ 166 ¼lk 0½/2003, Dehradun March 8-2006 issued by the respondent No.1. The said representation was allowed by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad Jaspur on 20-5-2006 and further one-year time was given to the petitioner to complete the work. The petitioner has followed all the norms of G.O as well as the agreement of work being executed between the petitioner and the respondents. It was stated by the petitioner that the 3 material deployed by the petitioner on the site of work was provided by the respondent No.2. The said material was examined by the Pant Nagar University and the report was given in favour of the petitioner and in the report it has been mentioned that the material deployed by the petitioner is genuine for construction of said Nala. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the respondent No. 3 without considering the previous agenda of the said Municipal Parishad, all of a sudden, on 23-9-2006, passed a resolution No. 247 against the petitioner and he has been black listed for further work. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have created problem to the petitioner by passing the order dated 4-10-2006 (Annexure No.2 to the writ petition) without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. Moreover, there is also a discrimination being done by the petitioner because the Municipal Parishad Jaspur has black listed the other contractor and issuing notice without giving proper opportunity of hearing. During the course of the argument, learned counsel for the respondent-Nagar Palika has submitted that the liberty be given to the Municipal Board to pass fresh order after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit. It reveals from the impugned order that no opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner prior to passing of an impugned order and he has been black listed for further work, without entering into the merits of the case, it is expedient in the interest of justice, the opportunity of hearing be given to the petitioner. 4 In view of the above fact and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is liable to be allowed. The impugned order dated 4-10-2006 is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order impugned dated 4-10-2006 is set aside. It is provided that the Nagar Palika-respondents shall be at liberty to pass fresh order after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. All pending applications is disposed of accordingly. (B.S. Verma,J) M.K.