HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR DB, HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA. C.J. & KONB'LE SHR! SLS?^!L KU"^AR S!NHA. J. WRIT PETmON(C).No.7077of2007 PETsTiONER Satish Kumar Agrawal, s/o Shri Dewaj Agrawal, Aged about 38 years, R/o Viltage Dumriya, Tehsil Baikuntpur, Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh. Versus RESPONDENTS 1 2. 3. 4. Chhattisgarh State Civil Suppties Corporation Limited, through Managing Director, Bal Ashram Parisar, Kuteheri Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh General Manager (Ffnance) Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Bal Ashram Parisar, Kutcheri Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Collector, District Korea, Baikuntpur, Chhattisgarh Naib Tehsildar, Baikuntpur, Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Shri Manoj Paranjpe and Shri Sanjay Kumar Agrawai, counsel for the petitioner. Shri V. R. Tivrari, counsel for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Deputy Govt. Advocate, for respondents no.3 & 4. 1 ^ '^s W.P.fCT No. 7077 of2007 QRDER (11.04.2008) Following order of the Court was delivered by SUNILKUMARSINHA.J. (1) On participating in tender dated 09.3.20)6 (Annexure P-3), the petitioner was awarded contracts for transportation of food grains from base depot Janakpur, Baikunthpur and Chirimiri Distt. Korea (C.G). For the said contracts he had deposited a sum of Rs.1 lakh each (total Rs.3 lakhs) as swurity amount wth the Chhattisgarh State Civii Supplies Corporation Limited. These contracts were for the financial year 2006-2007 (commencing from 1st of April 2006 and ending on 31st of March, 2007). Among the others, an essentiat condition to award the contract was that the contractor must be the resident of concerned district where the base depot is situated. Accordlngly, the petitioner was awarcted the contract as he had produced a residence certificate issued by the concerned Naib Tahsildar on 09,2.2006 which shows that the petltioner was resident of vlllage Dumaria, Tahsil Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea (C.G). The dispute arose when a complaintwas fited alleging that the petitioner was not the resident of ttie said vitlage and a forged certificate was obtained by him for getting these contracts. The concemed authority of respondents no.1 & 2 took cognizance in the matter and the aforesaid certificate was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 22.4.2006. Against the said cancellation order the petitioner preferred a re\rision before the Collector but the same was also decided against him on 07.8.2006 uphotding the ortler passed by the Sub-Divlsional Ofl"icer. It is after this, 3 show cause nottees were issued to the petitioner on 15.5.2006 mentioning therein that on account of his fraud his above contracts are cancelled and why the security amount of Rs.1 lakh, total Rs.3 lakhs may not be conflscated. ^ l^k>. ^s'!:a!sss'^ W.P.fCTNo. 7077 of2007 -^"^ ri^ .:-!r»ba.1 ^ffsaSi i ,-i "3a. s' %.. ~yj ^.^^' ^ 1;&.»L >^ The copies of the show cause notices have been filed as Annexure P-10. Thereafter, the impugned ordersof confiscation dated 07.6.2006 (3 orders relating to above 3 eontracts Annexure P-1) were passed against the petitioner confiscating the security amount deposited by him for each contract. After thls, another order dated 15.9.2006 (Annexure P-2) was passed whereby the petitioner was black-listed and was restrained from participating In tender process of the corporation for a period of two years. (2) The petitioner has challenged the validlty of these orders (Annewjres P-1 & P-2) and has prayed for quashment of the same. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the orders have been passed in utmost viotation of principtes of natural justice and before passing such orders, no proper opportunity of hearing was awarded to the petitioner. He argued that the show cause notices dated 15.5.2006 (Annexure P-10) were served upon the petitioner on 26.5.2006, whereas, it has been mentloned in the notice that the petitioner has to show cause upto 20.5.2006. He submitted that just after receiving the notice, though the petitioner had submitted his reply but the same was not considered by the concerned authority arKl the eonfiscation orders were passed. As far as black-listing is concerned, he argued that absolutely no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before passing the order of black listing. (4) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed these arguments. He contended that since the p^itioner did not file reply in time, therefore, the orders of confiscation were (assed and consequently, thereafter, order of black listing was passed on 15.9.2006. (5) We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have atso perused the records of the writ petition. \ d Z3—[. ^ W.P.(CT No. 7077 of2007 The Supreme Court, in ttie case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Vs. Union of India. AIR 1981 SC 818, discussed at tength the meaning of natural justice and observed as foll<ws: "The phrase is not capable of a static and precise deflnifion. It cannot be imprisoned in the strait- jacket of a cast iron formula. Historically "natural justice" has been used in a way "which ImpUes the existence of moral prlnciples of self-evident and unarguable truth." Natural Justtee by Paut Jackson, 2ntt Ed., page 1. tncourse of time Judges-nurtured in the traditions of British Jurisprudence, oflen invoked it in conjunction wlth a reference to "equatity and good consGience." Legal experts of earlier generation did not draw any distlnction between "naturat justice" and "naturat law°. "Naturat Justice" was considered as "that part on naturat law which retates to the administration ofjusttee." (7) In the matter of Raghunath Thakur Vs. State ofBlharand offiers. AIR 1989 SC S20. it further held that the order of blacklisting has the civil consequence for future business of person concerned and the person affected by order has right of being heard and mata'ng representations against order even though rules do not provide so expressly. (8) Therefore, on the above prineiples it is apparent that before passing any order against the interest of a person the fundamental principle is that he should be given a proper opportunity of hKiring and to show cause as to why such order shoutd not be passed. The opportunity should not be a mere formality and it should be the reat opportunity for the person concerned to put up his case for consideration of the concemed authority against the proposed consequence of the show cause \;' •% W£.(C) .J071of2007 notice issued against him. When the matter relates to blacklisting or further restrainment, tt is more imperatlve to follow the principte of natural justice because it has a civit consequence and it has an affect of preventing a person from the privilege and advantage of entering into tawfut relationship with the concemed authority for the purpose of gains, that's why, the feir play requires that he should not be given only an opportunity to show cause or that of hearing but also an opportunity of representation against such orders of putting hlm into blacklist. (9) So far as passing of the orders of conflscation is concerned, admittedly the show cause notices were issued on 15.5.2006 but as contended by the petitioner and as is apparent from the notices collectivety filed as Annexure P-10, these notices were received by the petitioner on 26.5.2006 and endorsements to this effect have been shown to be made in the notices with the initials of the server of the notices. The respondents have not been able to controvert that the endorsements made In the notices were nrt made by thelr server and they could not show that ths person who served the notices says that they were not his signatures or that the notices were served prior to that date. No records of the service have been produced before us. The contents of the notices would show that the petitioner was called upon to file show cause on or before 20.5.2006 and the contents of the impugned orders would show that since the petltioner coutd not file his reply upto 07.6.2006, therefore, the order of confiscation is being passed. The retum of respondents on this point oniy shows that since the petitioner could not file the reply v/ithin the stipulated period. therefore, the orders were passed. In the rejoinder tiied by the petitioner on 11.3.2008 the petitioner has categorically stated that the show cause notices dated 15.5.2006 were received by the petitioner on 26.5.2006 and the reply was sent on 27.5.2006 under Postal Certificate. The respondents \ 1 6 W.P.(QNo. 7077 of2007 have not filed any additional return to the said averments made by the petitioner in the rejoinder. Therefore, passing of the orders of confiscation on the grounds thatthe petitioner ted not repliedthe show cause notice till 07.6.2(X)6 does not appear to be eorrect. (10) Even otherwise also when the notices were issued on 15.5.2006 and reply was called by 20.5.2006 they should have been served upon the petitioner before the said date, but as stated above, it reveals from the notices that they were served upon the petitioner on 26.5.2006, which was after the date of calling to show cause. Be that as it may, but the fact remains intact, which is ciear from the impugned orders also,that the contention of the petitioner was not considered before passing the impugned orders of confiscation and accordingly the principles of natural justice were not comptled with before passing the said orders. (11) As far as the order dated 15.9.2006 (Annexure P-2) regarding blacklisting of the petitioner is concerned, it also does not reveat that before passfng this order any opportuntty of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. It is only stated in this order that since residence certificate issued by the Naib Tahsildar was cancelled by the Sub- DMsronal Offtoer and further slnce the Collector has also dismissed the revision against the said order fited by thepetitioner, therefore, it is established that the petitioner had tried to get the contract by playing fraud, hence he is restrained from participating in the tender process of the corporation for two years and he is atso btack-listed. If we look into the show cause notices (Annexure P-10) with reference to this order, even in the said show cause notices aiso it has not been mentioned that the petitioner should also show the cause as to why he should not be black-tisted and restrained from participating in further tender process of the corporation for two years. Absolutely, no averment in this regard is there in the 1 't3>° '*A '^. 1 "ss% 1 ^.^^/ '""xsesSSy W.P.fCTNo. 7077 of2007 notices. These notices pertain to the confiscation of the earnest money and not that of black listing or restraining from participating in further tender process. Therefore, it is writ iarge on record that before passing the impugned order Annexure P-2 which was admittedty stigmatic, condemning the petitioner and having civil consequences, the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing whatsoever it may be and on the above prlnciples, this order also cannot be sustained. (12) tn the result the writ petltion is allowed. The 3 impugned orders of confiscation dated 07.6.2006, coilectively filed as Annexure P-1, as also the order of biack-listing dated 15.9.2006 filed as Annexure P-2 are here by quashed on the ground that before passing such orders, proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner. However, the authorities are free to pass appropriate orders in this regard after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law. (13) Nocosts. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge /Raof