^)..: ' ^Y' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, C.G. WRIT PETITION^O., ^2^8 ^003 ^ (Petition under article 22rf/22"fof the Constitution oflndia) PETITIONERS ^.<-^ ^^T ^^•^^ ^<s«i?'' ••'"' i-.^ n'S'"'" ,-yy' ^^" ^' 1) M/s Sai ^shwashRice MiU, villageKarattja, Bhilai, Distt. Duig (C.G.) through its paitaer / Proprietor, Maaohar Gyanchandam, aged about 34 years, S/o G. Gyanchandani, R/o 12 Kadambmi Nagar, Diug (C.G.) 2) Ms Sonu Traders, Karanja Bhilai, Dmg (C.G.) (hrough its paitaer / proprietor Gm'nmidar Sin^i,aged about 2S yeais, S/o Sardar Kashmir Singh, R/o Kelawadi, Dutt. Duxg (C.G.) . VE.RSUS RESPONDENTS "-< 't* ^1) ^" Chhattisgarh State Ciwl Supplies Corporation Ltd. Bal Ashiaan Bhawan. Kadihahai Chowk, Raipur(C.G.) Disteict Manager. Chhattisgarh Civil Supplies CQiporationLumt^d, Dmg Distt. Durg (C.G.) 3) The Collector cum Food ControUer, Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 4) The Biaach Manager, CKhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, Dhamdha Naka, Durg (C.G.) 5) The Deputy E&ector, Food aad Medidne /'^- DepatHiaitDurg, Distt.Durg(C.G.) ^, ^ ^-6)—~ShriB.N MuiUiy, Food ControUer, Collectorate Office.Distt.Dmg(C.G.) ^ jIZj^——Shri Pradeep Richhariya. Astt. Food Officer, 7 ' Collectorate Offlce, Distt. Durg(C.G;) ^ 4-8) SImTaron R3thc»re,Food Inspector, Cdlliectmate PT^ (2) WMTPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF mDLA. FOR ISSUING A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR DIRECTIONSETC. "IBI ilEHI ma ^^S'^-tffi^^^-^^^ t^'^^'?'^';^:.^''?' ~'^K^^. ^l^l^l!:^!KFEi;i]! ;i i!^Ejjlil:!;:IJEi31: i)f t- ^ HIGH COURT OF GHHAmSG&RH. SVL&SPVR Wnt Petition No.2238/2003 M/s. Sai yishwash Rice MiU and anotlier Versys Chliattisgarli State GivilSupplies Corporatioa Ltd. aad ofhers POST FOR OROER ON 3RD fVBWARY. 2004 Sd<- L.C. Bhadoo Judge 3^2.2004 HIGH COIIRT OF JUDICATURB. CHHATnsaARH f BII^USPUR 1 m-it Petitioa Ko.2238/2003 M/s. Sai Vishwash Rice MiU and aaofher. Versus Chhattisgarh State Civit Supplies Corporation Ltd. and others. t '- <. • -', Shri Ajay Shrivastava, counsel for fhe pctitioners. Shri Prashaat Mishra, counsel for respondents No. 1, 2 & 4. Shri Ranbir Siagh, Govt. Advocate for respondents No. 3 & 5. Shri Anand Kuinar Tiwari, counsel for respondent no.7. Shri G.D. Gaagwani, counsel for respoadeut no.8. ORDBR (Passed on 2 '^- Februaiy 2004) As per L.C. Bhadoo, J. By fhis writ petition under Article 226/227 of fhe Constitution of India, pctitioners have challenged the order dated 08/07/2003 passed by the Collector-cuin-Food ControUer, Durg, whereby the agreement entered between petitioner no.l aad petitioner no.2 and respondent no.2 for supply for custom miUmg ofthe 'Arwa Rice" was caaceUed and the iiamc ofthc petitioner was put in the black Ust. 2 Brief facts leading to filmg of this petition are fhat the State Ctovemment of Chhattisgarh and Chhattisgarh State CwU Supply Corporation iavited applications for custom miUiag of Arsva Rice through the CoUector-cum-Food ControUer, District Durg - respondent no.3 aad ia response to fhat petitioners submitted their appUcatious. Petitioners' appUcations were aUowed and thc agreement was executed between petitioner no.l and respondentno.2 on 20/06/2003 (Aimexure P/2) and r • the other ^reemeut was exccuted between petitioner no.2 an?l respondent ^- 2 no.2 on 30/01/2003 (Aanexure P/3). As per fhe terms aad coiiditions of fhe ayeesiest, petitioaers started taldng paddy fioni Kisan Rice MiU which is bcing run by thc State Qovcmiaciit aad after custoin Tmltirig of said paddy ricc, subinittcd fhc samc ia fhc dcpot of thc rcspondent no.4 and aftcr duc analysis by thc Pood Inspcctor aad Tecbxucal Assistant of 0£&ce of the respondent no,2 ia District laboratoiy accepted the rice. Tbereafter, on 24/06/2003 petitioner no.l after custoia mining rice subinitted a lot ao. 1 195 aad after analysis by fhe Food Inspector and Techiucal Assistant, the same was refased and as per fhe condition no. 12 of the agreeiuent, petitioner took back the said lot on his own expenses and thercafter agam after custom mffling the said lot subinitted in the depot of the respondent no.4 aad after due analysis by the concemed aufliority, fhe same was accepted by respondent no.4, However, a show cause notice was issued to fhe petitioner about the said mistake on 24/06/2003 that the petitioner is not custom milling offhe rice as per fhe agrcement and he tried to deUver (he broken rice, therefore, wliy action uader Section 7 of tlie Essential Conunodities Act, sliould not be taken agaiast fhe pctitioner (Anncxure P/4). Reply to show cause noticc was subniitted by fhc pctitioncrs aad thcicaftcr again a lot no, 168 was suppUcd by the pctitioners on 01/07/2003 at thc depot of respondent no.4 and a coniplflirit was made by the petitioners tbat respondents no, 6 to 8 are not analyziag aad they are deinaiiding the bride froin petitioner no.2 aad a letter in the of&ce of respondent no.2 was subiniftted by the petitioner on 04/07/2003, but in spite of tfaat a lot no. 168 was not aualyzed. On 04/07/'2003 respondent no.2 sent a notice to the petitioner stating that earUer lot had been aaalyzed by the aualysis autbority in presence ofyour representative Shri Sahu, but even then fhey again asked the petitioner to remam present on 07/07/2003 at 11.00 a.m. m fhe office of respondent no.4 so that their lot no. 168 caa be analyzed which is Armexure P/8. After receipt of notice, petitioner went to depot of respondent no.4 on 07/07/2003 aud saw that their lot was not properiy situated and said that a lot no. 168 has not bccn aaalyzcd, Even fhough fhc pctitioncr said that as pcr thc Clausc 12 of the agrecnicnt fhcy arc prsparcd to takc back thc lot on their own cxpenses for rc-custoni uuUing and subnuttiiig fhe said lot. A letter (Aanexure P/ 12) was given in ttiis respect. Hovyever, on 0&1071'2,003 vide order no.390 respondent no.2 infonned the petitioners that the lot no. 168 subinitted by theni afier custoin milling ia the ofBce of respoildent no.4 on 01/07/2003 aflier stnalyzaig, fhe sanie bas been fouad defective ia which 40% Kanaki, 17% sinaU broken rice aad 5% Rabi was found and the same has been rejected aud fhe agreement was caaceUed aad stopped fhe bffls of fhe petitioner. The said order has been chaUenged on the ground that it is witfaout jurisdiction arbitrary aad when fhe lot was rejected it was the duty of the respondents to retum back tbe lot as per the Clause 12 ofttie agreement wtuch has not been done, thercfore, respondent no.3 has violated the condition of the agreement. 3 Retura has been filed on behalf of the respondents iu which fhey have denied the atlegations made against them by the petitioners saying that the petitioners tried to supply the defective lot in order to accominodate the prescribed staadard of rice and after aaalysis the lot nos. 168 and 195 were found defective and petitioners started threatening the respondents ttiat tf their lot is not accepted, they will take action agamst the respondents and tfae impugned order ofthe respondent no.3 is invalid because as per the Clause 12 oftbe agrceuient, petitioners were rcqutrcd to rcfer thc niatter to thc Govcmjncnt as tbc altemativc remcdy was availablc to thc petitioner, therefore, writ pctition is not mnintFiinable. 4. I have heard leamed counsel for fhe pardes. 5. Leamed counsel for the petitioners raised only one point that fhe impugned oider has been passed by fhe respondent no.3 wifhout giving any show cause notice to the pettdoners aad also wifhout giviag an opportmuty of heariag, tfaerefore, it is violatlve of principle of nature justice aad same is liable to be quashed ou that very ground as they have been put in the black Ust. Tlierefore, the fiindamentat rigbt of fhe petitioners has beeu infnnged whlch is iu violation of fiuidamental rights enshruicd uiidcr Articlcs of 14 aad 19 (1) (g) offhc Constitution oflndia. 6. However, leanied counsel for the petitioners has not argued regarding the canceUation offhe lot no. 168 offhe petitioners and violation of Clause 12 of the agreeinent by the icspondents. Leamed counsel for the petitioners has r^htiy not raised fhe second point because fhere are disputed facts. The allegations of fhe petitiouers were that the respondents ao. 6 to 8 were demanduig money aad siuce the petitioners have not paid saine , respondents had rejected their lot. On. the contrary, fhe respondents have sald that the rice suppUed by the petitioners was put to aaalysis by the Food Inspector aad Techmcal Assistaut Inspector aud the same was found defective as the broken rice was up to the extent of 40%, aad on thc other ground also it was found that 17% of sinall brokcn rice aad 5°/o of Rabi wcrc thcre. Thcrcforc, fhese arc fhc disputed facts and fhc rcport preparcd ui this case aficr exainuung fhc ricc suppUed by fhe petitioner caanot be questioned ia fhis writ petitioii. Therefore, ouly one question reniains before the Court to be decided that as to whether the priiiciple of natuial justice has been violated by the respondeats while issuin^ fhe iaipugned order. 7. Learaed coimsel for (b.e respondents submitted tfaat proper opportunity was given to the petitioners. In the first uistance, fhe lot no. 195 suppUed by thc petitioncr was dcfective and the sainc was nstumcd aud sccond ti.me it was acccpted. Suailarly, ftic lot ao.168 was also defectivc that could not havc bcen acccpted. Instead of supplying the rice of the prescribed standard, petitioners started fhreatenuig and leveltag false aUegations against the respondents. Therefore, the CoUector-cuin-Food ControU.er has rightly passed the uiipugned order. 8. Leamed counsel for the petltioners relled on the decision offtie Apex Court in the inatter of Ragfaunafh Thakur Vs. State of Bihar, reportcd ia AIR 1989 Vol. 76 Pagc no.620, m which HonTslc thc Apcx Court hcld that; °19(l)g) - Black Usting - order has civil consequencc for future busiaess of persoa concemed - Person affected by order has right of beiag heard aad makmg representations agaiast order even through rules do not provide expressly". The other decision relied upon by leamed counsel for tlie petitioners is iu tfae matter of Erusiau Equipuient aad Ch.einicals vs, State of West Bengal aud Anottier aad Uniou of India aad Ottiers vs. A.K. Mittuborwala and Othcrs reported in (1975) 1 SCC 70 in which fhc Hon'blc Apcx Court hcld fhafc "Black Usting - Party black Usted entitled to a notice to be heard before his name is put on the black list - Admiaistrative law - Natural Justice - Heariag - Constitution of India - Article 298 aad Part III of fhe Coastitution - Blacklistiag and fhe right to equaUty under Article 14 and the right ofbusincss underArticlc 19(l)(g)." 6 Ttie other decision relied upon by the leamed counsel for the petitioner is in tfae matter of Haii Abdul Shakoor and Co. vs. Union of India and Others reportcd ia AIR 2002 SC 2423, in which it has bccn hcld that: ''Contract carryiag capacily of contractor - Reduction ia - Resulting ia conversion of status of contractor fi-om. class "A" to class "B" contractor - Said order was passed by Autliority without givuig opportttnity of hearfag to contractor - Further it was also non-speaking order - Therefore liable to be set aside." 9. Thcrc is no dispute that thc petitioners wcrc cntiflcd for thc noticc aud opportunily of hcaring bcforc canccUatioa. It has bccn incntioncd in Para-5.16 of thc pctition at page No. 12 that fhe impugncd ordcr is without jurisdiction and aAitrary as per conditions of fhe agreeinent and the groiuid taken by the petitioners. It has been inentioned that the order is wifhout jurisdiction aad as per clause 12 of fhe agreenient, the rsspondents were required to retum the rice which has not been done, therefoiE, fhe order is iUegal and arbitraiy. In the whole petition it has nowhere been nientioned that fhe inipugned order was passed without giviag notice to fhe petitioner aud withoiit giviug proper opportunity. Thus, the prmciple of natural justice has been violated and without raising this ground specificaUy ia fhe petition, the counsel for the petitioner is not entiUed to raise this point while arguiag the matter. Unless the petitioner raised this ground specifically for quashinent of unpugued order on ttie ground of vlolation of prmclples of naturat justice tlie respondents are taken by surprise as they have not been able to ffle thcir icply in this icgard. In thc givcn situation thc pctitioncrs caiuiot bc ailowcd to raisc ncvy grou.ad "whicb has not bccn raiscd ui fhc pctition to v^^^^^^^^^^^. 7 surprise ofrespondents. No other poiutwas ai^ued by fhe leamed counsel for the petitioners. 10. In the result, fhe petition of fhe petitioaers is liable to be dismissed aad is dismissed, L.C. Sd/- '^•W/U'^Sf^uu^ Ka.iu