IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.11644/2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
MARUTHI HOSURAPPA KALLAWADDAR S/O M. H. KALLAWADDAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT K H D C COLONY, GAJENDRAGAD, RONA TALUK, GADAG DISTRICT-578114 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI VASUDEVA IYENGAR K. T., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS AND PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, II FLOOR, BANGALORE-560001 2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION SUB DIVISION, KUSTAGI, TALUK AND DISTRICT, KOPPAL-583277.
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION SUB DIVISION, KUSTAGI TALUK AND DISTRICT, KOPPAL-583277.
4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION (NORTH) VIJAYAPURA, DISTRICT VIJAYAPURA-586101.
5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, COMMUNICATION AND BUILDINGS, ( SOUTH ZONE) K.R.CIRCLE, NEAR RBI BANK, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y. D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5) **** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.02.2019 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT-5 AS PER ANNEXURE-K, AS ILLEGAL.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner, who is a Class-I Contractor is before this Court for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 23.2.2019 passed by the 5th respondent as per Annexure-K, mainly on the ground that before blacklisting the petitioner, the 5th respondent has not provided an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a Class-I Contractor and has entered into agreement with the respondents on 11.1.2016 and has undertaken and completed several projects from the year 2015 to 2019 and has been working without there being any allegations. The respondents without giving any notice and affording an opportunity of being heard, proceeded to pass the impugned order blacklisting the petitioner alongwith the others. Therefore the petitioner is before this Court for the reliefs sought for.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
4. Sri Vasudeva Iyengar, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, has contended that the impugned order passed by the 5th respondent blacklisting the petitioner, is in utter violation of principles of natural justice and the same cannot be sustained. He would further contend that while passing the impugned order, the 5th respondent has not assigned any reasons for blacklisting the petitioner along with the others and it is a cyclostyled order. Therefore he sought to allow the writ petition 5. Per contra, Sri Y.D. Harsha, learned AGA for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 sought to justify the impugned order and contended that the petitioner has not followed the procedure as contemplated under the ‘Rules of Registration of Contractors in Karnataka – PWD’. He sought to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has been working with the respondents and has undertaken and completed several projects from the year 2015. On careful perusal of the impugned order, it clearly depicts that the 5th respondent before passing the impugned order, blacklisting the petitioner along with the others, no notice or opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner. Therefore the impugned order cannot be sustained.
7. It is well settled that before blacklisting the Contractor, a show cause notice should be served and opportunity of being heard should be given. Without issuing notice and affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the impugned order cannot be sustained insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
8. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.2.2019 passed by the 5th respondent only in so far as the petitioner is concerned, is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to the 5th respondent for reconsideration afresh after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE Gss/-