Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.
1. Heard Sri Mohammad Ehtesham Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Namit Sharma for the Municipal Corporation, Lucknow and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. In the earlier writ proceedings bearing no. 20316 (MB) of 2020, wherein the earlier order dated 14.08.2020 blacklisting the petitioner firm was under challenge, this Court while disposing of the said writ petition issued a direction to the Nagar Ayukt, Lucknow to provide a post-decisional hearing to the petitioner. It was directed that the Nagar Ayukt shall issue an appropriate notice bearing therein the grounds of the proposed action and also annexing the documents on which the proposed action is intended to be taken. Other ancillary directions were also issued. The order dated 14.08.2020 was made subject to the final outcome of the proceedings of post-decisional hearing, which was to be drawn under the judgment dated 11.11.2020.
3. Consequent to it, a show cause notice dated 21.03.2021 was issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Lucknow to the petitioner to which the petitioner submitted his reply, copy of which is annexed as Annexure 10. Three allegations were levelled against the petitioner in the notice dated 21.03.2021. First was with regard to lodging of the FIR by the Chief Engineer, Electrical and Mechanical, Nagar Nigam, Lucknow on 21.07.2020. The second allegation was connected to the same incident which was the subject-matter of the FIR. The third allegation was with regard to complaint similar to the one which was the subject-matter of the FIR from other departments. No documentary proof with regard to the third allegation was furnished to the petitioner, a fact which could not be denied by the counsel for the Municipal Corporation. With regard to the first two allegations, the counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the reply submitted by the petitioner, wherein it was specifically mentioned that the informant i.e. the Chief Engineer, Electrical and Mechanical, Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, who had lodged the FIR had given an affidavit before the Police during investigation and subsequently before the CJM concerned, a copy of which is annexed at Page-49, categorically denying the incident as was alleged in the FIR, based on which the Police submitted a final report in the matter and the court below accepted it.
4. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that these facts have not been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order by which the petitioner-firm has again been blacklisted, and in fact, the said facts which are unfounded, have been made the basis for blacklisting the petitioner. He says that the aforesaid FIR was against the petitioner's son and not against the petitioner.
5. On being confronted, Sri Namit Sharma submitted that there was another FIR against the petitioner's son, which is dated 14th August, 2020. However, when we asked him as to whether the said FIR was the subject-matter of the notice dated 21.03.2021, assuming that it could be made a basis, and whether a copy of such FIR was furnished to the petitioner as was obligatory under the earlier judgment dated 11.11.2020, he fairly submitted that the copy of the said FIR had not been provided to the petitioner.
6. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the order impugned is not in consonance with the directions/observations of this Court in the earlier judgment dated 11.11.2020 passed in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, as referred hereinabove. The order impugned therefore, cannot be sustained, for the reason firstly that it has been passed on facts pertaining to the FIR lodged by the Chief Engineer, Electrical and Mechanical, Nagar Nigam, Lucknow in respect to which, in fact, a final report has been filed by the Police and the same is said to have been accepted by the CJM concerned but this fact has not been taken note of, although it was mentioned in the reply of the petitioner to the notice dated 21.03.2021. Secondly, the material which is now been relied, assuming that it could be so relied as it pertains to petitioner's son and not the petitioner, was never supplied to the petitioner by the notice dated 21.03.2021, therefore, we quash the order dated 10.08.2021 however with liberty to the opposite party no. 2 to proceed afresh, if there is any material against the petitioner-firm, but only in terms of the earlier judgment dated 11.11.2020, referred hereinabove.
7. With these observations, petition stands allowed in part.
(Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 24.8.2021 Nitesh