IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.41092 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SHRI BASAVESWARA TRANSPORT CORPORATION, SHIMOGA NO.86, A BLOCK 100 FEET ROAD G.G. EXTENSION SHIMOGA-577 201. REP. BY NATESH U.R. S/O. U. RAJENDRAPPA AGED 33 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAVISHANKAR T.P., ADV. - ABSENT) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS KSCMF BUILDING CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU-560 052.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT MYSORE-570 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y.D. HARSHA, A.G.A. FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 DATED 19.07.2016 PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R None appear for the petitioner.
Sri Y.D. Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.
2. Heard the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 on the question of admission and perused the records.
3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 19.07.2016, by which an order has been blacklisting the petitioner.
4. From a perusal of the grounds raised in the petition and the averments made therein, it is evident that the sole ground of attacking the impugned order dated 19.07.2017 by the petitioner is that the aforesaid order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as neither any notice nor an opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, before passing the impugned order. Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 was unable to point out from the records neither any notice nor an opportunity of hearing is afforded to the petitioner, before passing the impugned order.
5. It is well settled in law that, an order of blacklisting has civil consequences and therefore, principles of natural justice have to be complied with before passing the impugned order. The impugned order has been passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of the decision laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘GORKHA SECURITY SERVICES VS. GOVT. (NCT OF DELHI)’, (2014) 9 SCC 105.
6. In view of the aforesaid precedent analysis, the impugned order dated 19.07.2016 is hereby quashed and set aside. However, the respondents are granted the liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST