IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.29364 OF 2016 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN:
M/S OM BIOMEDIC PRIVATE LIMITED PLOT NO.68, 69, 82 & 83 SECTOR - 6, IIE SIDCUL, HARIDWAR - 249403 UTTARAKHAND REP. BY ITS GPA HOLDER MR. MOHIT BHATIA.
(By Mrs. BHARATHI PATIL, ADV., FOR Mr. M.G.S. KAMAL, ADV.,) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560001 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
… PETITIONER 2. KARNATAKA STATE DRUGS LOGISTICS AND WAREHOUSING SOCIETY NO.1, DR. SIDDAIAH PURANIK ROAD KHB COLONY, MAGADI ROAD BANGALORE – 560079.
… RESPONDENTS (By Mr. VIJAY KUMAR A. PATIL, AGA FOR R1 Mrs. M.C. NAGASHREE, ADV., FOR R2) - - -
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 10.12.2015 passed by respondent at Annex-A. Quash the notice dated 5.2.2016 and reminder of even number dated 24.2.2016 at Annex-B1 and B2 and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Smt.Bharathi Patil, learned counsel for Sri.M.G.S. Kamal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Vijay Kumar A.Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 Smt.M.C.Nagashree, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 10.12.2015 by which the petitioner has been blacklisted for a period of five years by the Additional Director, Karnataka State Drugs Logistics and Warehousing Society.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order and no worth reason has been assigned for blacklisting the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents were unable to demonstrate from the record, either any notice or any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and any reason has been assigned in the impugned order.
5. I have considered the submissions made on both sides. It is well settled in law that when it is intended to impose the penalty of blacklisting, adequate and meaningful opportunity to show cause the same has to be accorded. In this connection, a reference has been made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ‘GORKHA SECURITY SERVICES Vs. GOVERNMENT (NCT OF DELHI) AND OTHERS ‘ (2014) 9 SCC 105.
6. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law and from perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner. It is well settled in law that a quasi judicial authority is required to assign reasons for its conclusion in view of the decision laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL vs. HOWRAH GANATANTRIK NAGRIK’, 2010 (3) SCC 732. The impugned order also does not indicate that any reason has been assigned for blacklisting the petitioner. Therefore, the same is quashed and set aside. However, the respondents are granted liberty to take action against the petitioner, if so advised in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV