Case: Haji Abdul Shakoor and Company Vs. Union of India and Others

3. The appellant was registered as a Class B Contractor for supplying meat group items to headquarter Central Command, respondent No. 2. The contractor carrying capacity of the appellant was then limited to Rs. 1.80 crores. On September 4, 2000 its contract carrying capacity was enhanced to Rs. 7.20 crores by the Central Command, Lucknow by letter dated September 4, 2000. Thus, it became Class A Contractor. On the request of the appellant, to enable it to compete in securing contract in Western Command, respondent No. 3, its contract carrying capacity limited to Rs. 6.50 crores was transferred by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 3, which was acknowledged by letter dated December 14, 2000. The second respondent by its letter dated December 21, 2000 informed the appellant that its contract carrying capacity for Rs. 6.50 crores was accepted by the third respondent. However, by the impugned order of the third respondent the contract carrying capacity of the appellant was reduced to Rs.3.50 crores and the same was intimated to it on December 21, 2000. The validity of that letter was assailed by the appellant before the High Court at Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 1041 of 2001. On March 13, 2001, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition taking the view that the matter related tocontract. It is the correctness of that order of the High Court that is under challenge in this appeal.

Reasoning:
This is a civil right of the appellant which cannot be taken away or even curtailed except in accordance with law. Admittedly before passing the impugned order no. opportunity of being heard was afforded to the appellant by the third respondent as such the impugned order suffers from the view of violation of the principles of natural justice and such an order cannot but be an arbitrary order.From a persual of this letter it is apparent that before reducing the capacity no. notice was issued to the appellant and he was not given an opportunity to represent its case in regard to reduction of contract carrying capacity which indeed converts the status of the appellant as Class B Contractor. Whether the policy which is called in aid to support the impugned order, is valid in law and if so, it applies to the appellant, are factors which need to be determined after giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Further, it is also evident that the impugned order is aorder. Unfortunately, the High Court missed these germane aspects, therefore, the order of the High Court under challenge, cannot be sustained.