s^ 3^'STTiiT^r, axfi^'16, Rlciwy 66 'HWdl <h<41<b ^ 200 ss^ ira% CI}?fg^r) 3)li?I.wRFIT9; wnanCT 'sKW TOlfWfrl WRlf Tf 1%C^ ^f^R •^stRwsii^r S^cntosh Shrivastava, s/o R.K. S^uivastava, aged about 43 jars, Occupation- Registered 3, Contractor, R/o Near RESPONDBNTS y^ A{ D|urga Teinple, TeUbaadha R^ipur, Distnct Raipur, C^ihattisgarh Versus tate of Chhatysgarh, fhrough fhe ecretaiy, Department of 4griculture, Mantralaya, DKS ^hawaa, Raipiu-, Chhattisgarh, [ndira Gaadhi Krishi Vishwa Qdyalaya, Raipiir, CIihatysgarh, rhrough its Registrar. |Supermtendent, Indira Gandhi jKrislu Vishwa Vidyalaya, Raipiir, IChliattisgarh. DB: HON'BLBSHRI L.C. BB HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL kUMAR SIKHA. JJ. Appearance: Shri Rajiv Shrivastavaj coimsel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh 'yhakur, Dy. Advocate Oeneral for the State/respondent No. 1 Shri Shashank Tfaakzd, counsel for respondents No, 2 & 3. ,59—8/2007 —30,000. 3^? -^WW-tl, girS\W16, R«7>l*)y HWvll shWcb W^ 200 aitw vw (Tplyyt) an^r.'w R-ii'k WT 3)1^1 shW* J^- ORAL ORDBR (30.01^2008) FoUowmg order ofthe Couijtwas passed by IL.C.Bhadob, J. TOIIW ^ifer <ni^r - "L- CM'i<f(n<fli 'WT^if ^ 'fs^ <^^l< ^aTfaiTsn^r Heard finaUy with ttie cons^nt of the pardes. At fhe outset, leamed cou^isel for the petitioner submitted that he is not pressiag the relief^egardiag aon-issuance oftender documeut aad his prayer is |united to fhe extent fhat the petitioner has been blackUsted wjithout afFordiug any opporturuly of hearing and defending his c^se. In para 5.5 & 5.6 of the petition, it has been mentio^ed that when the petitioner approached to respondent No.3 on 20.12.2007 for issuing him tender documents, he was orafly iafonned that hc has beeii blacklisted and for this reason, f[ie tender form wiU not be issued to him. Thereafter on 22. 12 applicatiou to respondent No.3 subinitted a deruaud draft for Rs 2007, he again submitted au prayiug fhat fhe petitioner has 1 lakh for issuance of fhe tender form aad he has been orallt informed that he has been blackUsted. In para 5.7 ofthe|petition, it has been mentioned that tUl date there is no i^iforination ia writmg by the respondents as to why and |when the petitioner lias been blackUsted. Tbe above action |of tfae respondents is arbiteary, iUegal aad Unreasonable. On ^hese aUegations, leveUed by the 67 ?HB^-i-—'— i.007 —30,000. .^.•^Ss, '^ i!!"ll ~ ^ \.'9^/ '"'^ais-^" ^sq'ansn^q', ©Tfly'itf,RK'iiyy 6!8 ^Wvil **11* WI, 200 3II^?T.W fi;-1l«b wirai^r wm? ^^ an^r 'vsiv (ipf^g^r) TOiRR^ifOTsn^r petitiouer, respondents Nc nientioned aayfhing. Alfho that the petitioner was nc before passiag order date< University, whereby the peti In fhe matter of SSs/ 2 & 3 in their reply have not i|igh, it has not been denied by theia given any opportunity of hearuig 1.4.2005 by the Registrar of fhe ttioner was blackUsted. iruslcui Evrulmnent emd Chemlceils X-fd. Vs. Sttlte of West Beiiga.l andtmother, refforted in AQ? 197S SC 266, ftie Apex effect of preventing a persoi enteriag iato lawftd relat purposes of gaias. The fa^ order of blackUsting iiidicaj have aa objective satisfactio|u that the person concemed| represeiit tus case before he| The petitioner herei(i blackUsted without giving ia view of fhe Apex Court| other judgnient rendered u|i 7s. State ofSihw and otft< -la5^T¥bfR- iu which, the Apex Court consequence for ftiture buj affected by order has 4 representations against ord^ expressly. Therefore, in| •30.000. l=m<qI<rt-tfl'T 'RTq^f "if 'f^si' ^-^|< ^sfRiirsn^r fourt held that blacklisting has the fn>ru the privUege and advautage of |tonship wifh the Govenunent for ^t that a disabiUty is created by the ;s that the relevaut authorily is to t. Fundamentals of fair play require should be given an opportunity to is put on the bIackUst. vide order dated 1.4.2005 was opportunity of headag, therefore, judgtnent and also considering fhe the matter of liaghuncrth THakur ers. reoorted in ASR 1989. SC 620, a|ny leld that blackUstmg order has civil iness of person concemed. Person ;ht of beiag heard and mafcmg even though rtdes do not provide so view of fhe above, Apex Court 3^q'^TWRPT, »^t1'l<»,R(<rtl*fy 65 ^Wvtl *NI<* an^r.qir Ri-ii'b wraii^r SKW •^t J>U^ufa, ^s^- WI. 200 an^r 'vw (fS-y'y) judgments, we are of the AnnexuTe P-5 datcd 1.4.; blacldisted, fe peryerse as th|e aay opporttmity of hearing t<| ; AceQrdingty, fhe ordej which, ttie petitioner was responaents No. 2 & 3 wiU b| against fhe petitioner. After | to hini they may pass aa ord|e: Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge |considered opiiuon that fhe order fp05, whereby, the petitioner was same was passed wlfhout affordiag him. dated l.4.2005, Aunexure P-5, by IblacMisted, is quashed. However, at liberty to initiate the proceediags Igivrag proper opportunity of heariag ler in accordauce with law. Sd/- SunaKumarSinha Judge 'Ol^f^l-'l iTR^ff ^f fel3t' <f«R^T< '^aifipT sii^i vsSt ^ai? ^IRRT, oa-iwiM —FS/59— 8Q007 —30,000.