c; /E't<98(/\ 5, @Wigm @mm IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TISGARH AT RILASPIIR Writ Petition No.é7é7 /2006 PETITIONER Sunil Kumar Garg, S/o Shri Daya Kishan Agarwal, Aged about 38 years, Occupation — Contractor, R/o Chakradhar Nagar Chowk, Raigarh (C.G.). -Versus— ESPONDENTS / l. Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, Through its Commissioner, Raigarh (C. G.). / 2. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, Raigarh (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/p“ OF THE CONSTITUTION OF'INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF‘ CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. R /T J H§GH {KBURT OF CH?€A‘?TEE€A§%’§ : E§L§$§EHR Eévisicn garish Comm : Hon’bie ShrE Hi. {Eating Cd & Hw’ma Shri 1!}; Shrivagtavgg i Writ Petitian N0, 57$? cf 2%36 Shri Rageev Shriyasiava‘ soume! f9! the wat§t§£men ‘ Shi’i VR. ‘a‘iwari, cuumei fm‘ i‘ne {espamieiVi‘a GRAN. GRDER ($‘assed on Wm February, 2%?) "z‘he foiiowing tarai oifder of ihe 6am: wa$ wassed by HA; §Jamt {1i Pei§tioner is a nontractor. He was awarded a cantract i0? construciing foo‘tpath anci widenigig cf reau‘ by arespondenimmmcipai x Corporatian, Raigarh, Wde thew brder daied 1‘2-20138. ?o:’ vamus reasons. it apgears thai the petitianer mum moi: commence me canstruc’iion work as pew me contract aWameei ‘io him. Ai'ier issuance 9f awtzce, fhe respondentiCarpora&ian has issued iwa ¥eiters dated 1§-6-‘2€}08 and 16—H-2606. Aggraaved by ihe said ieiters peiiiiener is before us in ihis Wm petiiian. 2) Shri §Qa§eev $hriva‘5tava” ieamed wumei apnearmg my the setiiioner wouié whim? mat i‘espondems wimout issmm a show cause notice am afforéing appcmmiy m‘ heafing to the pe'ziimmery couid not have biacmisieci éhe pet§&ianaa‘ and §u¥fne§ pmhibiieci faim A ah '* ‘Pefaiéonea’ Snnii Kama (5am Vergus; Responciem Mummipaz Semwatéom R§igam 3i Jmctu e? Pieseni : fmm partici§aiing §n teraders ihai may be issueei by the respwdenii‘ i‘xiiumcipai Comoration: Raigarh, iherefore, siaied ’ihaft aciioa a? the resnandems is arbitfarv, mega: am in Vmia‘iéon cf princépées of naiurai justice. ‘3} Smi VR. ‘Hwari, ieamed counse€ awearirag for fi‘m [esmndents wouki infcrm :18 “mat after canceH'ng the camarac‘i ”that was awardeai to ihe Deiitéoner. the respomieiwwiummpaé Comoraiiun has issued fresh tender notificai‘aon aad éheu’aaf‘zer has awarded ihe contract to a thia’d person. Learned ceunsei farmer submits tha’r ihe oihew comractof has ah'eady cemmencee ihe constructioh weirk, i’nevefore, at ihis stage this iiouri need mi t0 mterfei’e with ihe impugned ietx’ers ciated $5—6—2t’jiiii3‘ anci ‘16-??- 2098. 4) 3n We wr§% ee‘mion ‘the emy queeiien afises fey consiéem'iieh anci determinaiion is thai weemer the fespondentiSargmratien camel have biackia‘sted the pe€iiioner wEhout §ssu§ng netice i9 mm and “further comm have Drehib‘ated him from pamcmatmg in iende‘ws feat may be issued by the respeneem Cerpom‘iiom The iaw en me H vt I paint is weii sewed. if a person ishbiaekiisied, ihe autheri’tkee concerned have to issue a shew cause neiice ie the pefsei": cancemed am afford proper oppez’mm’ty of hearmg i0 him, bet that is noi done here in the instant ease. The eciiera ef the respendems as not omy arbiirary. bet aise cepricioue and m vioiatien e’f perineimes of natural gustice. Further; if a perszm is erehibrted from participating in the tender tiiat may be issued by “me reeeondemi’ Coreoraiiera. then aiso at ieas’r a shew cause netice requires i0 be issued i0 him. in the insrani ease, this exercise has net been eerie fg/ by ‘Ihe fesponden’tiCorperatéon, fherefore, we canmt be sustaining the orders dated 1§—6-2006 & 16-11-2006 passed by the respondent {Ecrpora’mn and ihe intimation iesued by ihe respondents in inioa'ming the peiitianer ihat he is Mackiisted and prohibized ffom participa‘iing in any ‘tenéer that may be issueci by ihe resnondent Cafperatien. Accordingly; “the feilowing: C) rder 1) ¥Vet§i§on is ailowed in part. 2) T he impugned §e€ters éated 1 5-6-2G0’é & ’i$—'i “i-“ZGCéE are quashen. ‘3) nespondente are a? Rberty i0 pass appmpnate amers for biackiisting ihe pet§1i§oner ait‘a issuing a shew cause natice f9 the pet§tioner and after affording prayer appon'uniiy anneanng m ném. 4) if for any reason the fespendentmorpem‘iion iniends to prohibit the petiiiona to par€ic§pate in any tendef nf Municipai {Eerporatien in mime, the same requires i0 be done eniy aftef nearing the petitioner 5) So faf as difference of higher seer is caneemec}. pursuant to ieiter daieti i8iiil2i§i36r petitiener is a: iiberiy re rake recourse avaiiabie to him in accardance‘wirn iaw. Greereci Raju accordingiy‘. Sd/— V.K. Shrivastava Judge 3d!— Chief Justice