CP -I'^oZ INJTIE HLGHCp^RTOFLJUDICATURE^^TBJLASPUR.^C.G.l OLr) W.P.No. ^J° ' /2006 PETITIONER: J^^ ,ow..--;^-l; ,-••' /?\^ '.*** <><>'^^v fS-' »" <s"% <y M/s. Arihant Industries (A Partnership Firm) Duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 Vide Registration No. 74/05- 06, at Plot no. 30-C and 30-D, Sirgitti Industrial Area, Sector-A, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT: Chhattisgarh State Industrial Developmeot Corporation Limited, (A Government of Chhattisgarh Undertaking), A company registered and Incorporated under Indian Companies Act, 1956, Represented through the Managing Director, Ground Floor, L.I.C. Commercial Comiplex, Pandri, Raipur. PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF^ INDIA FOR_ ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATB WRITS OF MANDAMUS^^AND CJ;RTIPRAR? AND FQR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS: - 10 B! x K r' sj^su ^ni !©T^-s js !nBr?^Tl -^"T = i=^ia^fs^ ^yWW?^. t wr" ^^Jit^i^s1'^ i ai^i^.^ wr^r^f^ i i 1-^' ,».< • •s-^^f^n-i ti V.K. r.a.i.'fl W.P.(C) No. M/s. Arihant Industries (A Partnership FinTi) Duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 Vide Registration No. 74/05-06, at Plot no. 30-C and 30-D, Sirgitti Industrial Area, Sector-A, Biiaspur fr^ n \ {\^.^y. Chhattisgarh State industria! Development Corporation Limited, (A Government of Chhattisgarh Undertaking), A company reglstered and Incorporated under 'ndian Companies Act, 1S56, Represented throuah the Manaaina Director, Ground Floor, LIC Commercial Complex, Pandri, Raipur. Present: Shri KanaK Tiwart, learned Sr. Advocate wlth Shri Prateek Sharma, teamed counsel for the petltioner. Shri Ayaz Naved. learned counse' for respondent. &i ni [AL Ul The followfng ora! order of the Court was passed by ^ ^... N^VANr fLI in this writ petition, order No. CSIDC/MKD/PS-iv/06/2723-24, Raipur, dated 27-07-2006 of the Chhattisgarh State [ndustrial Development Corponation Llmited (fbr short "the Corporation"), the respondent herein, withdrawjng the rate contract No. PS-iv/027/IVKD/0890W5-06/230/HPSAa>l/246 dated 28-04-2006 issued by the respondent-Corpofatipn in favour of the petitioner and directing the respondent not to receivefexecute any order reoeived from direct demand officer against the aforesaid rate contract, is assalled. Amongst other grounds, the impugned action is assalled on the ground that the rate contract has been withdrawn in utter violatlon of princlples of natura! justice and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to have its say in the matter. s^- Opposing the writ petition, retum is fiied by the respondent-Corporation. We have perused the petltion averments and also awrments macie in the return. What emerges from the pieading of the parties is that the Chairman of the Corporation has receiwd a compiaint from a riva! trader aiieglng that the petitloner on the date the contract was awarded to it did not possess requlred certlficafe of registration, and conduoted an enquiry behind the back cf the petitioner and came to the conclusfon that the petitioner lacte essentja' qualification for awarding rate contract. Spec'fic at'egation is made in the writ petition that the impugned onjer was passed without notice to the petrtioner and without givjng any opportunity to have a say in the matter, which allegation is not -^^-^*^^?"^ ^3'^ "s)? ?z"! '^^i'^ ^~^\i'i ^t^"^ ?^r ra"<l ^'F^ i^ -?'i^/S-^ ^ /~^ *^t -^" T'^l^t/^^^i ^ 4*/^F~l/^nT?mi<TF".-»p>^^ ^"^ ?^*; rf-^^-/^ i f^ <LL in-^ QSHISQ 31 Sll in IHQ reium. IF s's UFLIG msi IT 3H SUTHOfsTV l6fm?HSrS3 3H QrQIPSP/ -^^?A^~t~J^.:/*ti' f^*^ ^Sn.^i -*~u^/^i i?-"^L/4 f~\? ^'~\V!^i^t.f~^^\ /^? ^•/'^-yt^^i"'*1 -" ^-*'/^ /^/^^:^r4'^/^i-~^?'v y*i? 4r^.-^\ ^»/^?~\4fr'-^/^; coraract on ine grounci or orgscn or rerms ano conaiTions or ine oonirsct, ^t.^^^'L^*^ U^ ^ -?v y^?—^-r^t/i y-; ^^ ^1"";/^'^'i-?s^^ ^"iif~^^/nt^'^•^ l"/s if-"v^ i ?-i /??<^^^i.?*ka ^- i s^r^ /^/^^i<S'e~^A-^^-'^ ii"- »~^^\1'" * i'^i'^ ^i?^4'^^^I i^'- f gGneraiiy spesK^ng, noiics DSTQF^ isrminsTspg suon conxracT is POT IPSISIBG oy TP^ Court. !t is not one such case. It is not the case of the Corporation that the recorcls o* the Corporation themseiws or the Corporation itself found breach of ^'.^r*~^c1 /3?/~3'^ I'^T^r^^if'L"^^^ ?^? ^^-^i ^/^\.^i^r^^^^' Ar4y^1^'^i^/*^I^/ ^•)^^ ^^y^^~sf ?/u"r^^='^ '^^^'F^^ \f-^^^ iVl i S f^ £3i SU UU5 i'jfisUi is; yi i1 iy l/Ui Hj cis-/l. MUi ? iiLiyU^y^ l! iC; ;i i !pUyl li^-i CsVliU! ? ¥¥'C3S- taken in pursuance of an allegation made by a trade rival. In that view of the matter.'the principte offairness required the Corporation to atteast a notice to the petit'oner bringing it to its nofioe the allegation made by a rival trader and to give it an opportunity to meet Siat aliegation. In the course of hearing, Shri Kanak Tiwari, !eamed Sr. Counsel for the rtpflf-^r-^^af c!_r-f\sj "j u~ s+t^nfinn ir\ '^hftf i?^ ^tp.f^^ in i^^i'K 'IH -'^f ih^ r'r1,; !nj'?''r M^ jjSl'iLIUi ^d U-i^'A' UU; fillCi ilFUi t IV W; ic3l ite SslCUCU U i piSi^ } U U^ li Fs? UyLil Uyi, PiC Wi^i'!lrl i'^rtn'f"'Kisf" fh?s r'r'i"'i'°*'f?!s!rtn r?3S;"^hA'^ h1/ fh^ (.h-sifmsn shnuf' fh's ra<af;f'fr=r;?a<- |n MyyU;U U^i il.&?fel l; sS Uy? ;U;USiU! S S t?CIUi iCU ^y li ?S V-;S iCIII! f iGU c3UL?L?l II ;S (J^ljliUs i^i H i not possessing the required certificate of registration. If the petitioner was to be given an opportunity of belng heard, Shri Kanak Tiwari would sfate, It wouid have expiained to the Corporation about the faisjty of the aHegation, He submrts that there is no substance in the a'tegatron made by rival trader and it was basetess, There is no need for us to undertake the adjudication of the issue whether the petitjoner had possessed certificate of the registration as on Wyf^- -3- relevant date or not, and it is for the Corporatton to decide after giving a fair opportunity to the petitioner to have its say in the matter, In the result, we altow this writ petition and quash the impugned onjer. No cost. This order shall not come in the way of CorporaSion from issuing notice to the petitioner on the basis of a!!egat!on leveUed by a rival trader against the petitioner and taking appropriate action in aocordance with law after givlng falr opportunity to the petltioner to have its say in the matter.' Sd/- ChiefJustice Sdf- V.K. Shrivastava Judge .--.''-