IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NO.821/2015 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI K.P. MANJUNATH S/O K.PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 1ST CLASS CONTRACTOR R/AT No.13, 1ST CROSS AGROMORE LAYOUT ATTIGUPPE, VIJAYNAGAR 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560 040 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SRINIVAS V. ADV.,) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY IT’S SECRETARY TO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT 3RD FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA M.S.BUILDING, Dr. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA PUBLIC WORKS PORT AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT RAMANAGARA DIVISION RAMANAGAR-562 117 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.C.KAVITHA, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS ON THE FILE OF R-2 AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.12.2014 i.e., ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.
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 has filed this writ petition seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 09.12.2014 bearing No.sam.ka.da/nasha/registration/ 8106/blacklist at Annexure ‘D’ passed by respondent No.2.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a First Class Civil Contractor in Public Works Department and a license has been issued in this regard. It is alleged that, he has deposited fake Fixed Deposit Receipts at the time of awarding of the contract.
The second respondent has blacklisted the petitioner without affording an opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned order. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. The State Government has not filed the objections.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. Sri V.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the second respondent is an utter violation of principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. He further contended that before blacklisting the petitioner as First Class Civil Contractor permanently, the second respondent ought to have issued notice and provide an opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned order. The same has not been done by the second respondent. Therefore, the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, he sought for allowing the writ petition.
6. Per contra, Smt. H.C.Kavitha, learned HCGP for the respondents justify the order at Annexure ‘D’ passed by the second respondent.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is a First Class Civil Contractor recognized by the Public Works Department and a licence has been issued in favour of the petitioner to proceed with the civil work. On certain allegations, the second respondent passed the impugned order by blacklisting the petitioner even without mentioning the period of blacklisting in the impugned order.
8. On a careful perusal of Annexure ‘D’ dated 09.12.2014 passed by the second respondent clearly depicts certain allegations are made out. But, the order does not depict the petitioner has given notice or an opportunity of being heard as contemplated. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering in an identical issue in the case of Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and Anr. reported in AIR 1975 Supreme Court 266 held that blacklisting order does not pertain to any particular contract. The blacklisting order involves civil consequences and it is an instrument of coercion. In passing an order of blacklisting the department acts under what is described as a standardized code and such code is internal instruction. Blacklisting has the effect of preventing a person from the privilege and advantage of entering into lawful relationship with the Government for purposes of gain. Since a disability is created, the relevant authority is to have an objective satisfaction.
9. Admittedly, in the present case, the second respondent has not given any opportunity of being heard the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. My view is fortified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a later Judgment in the case of Gorkha Security Services v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. reported in AIR 2014 SC 3371, at paragraphs No.18 and 20 held as under:
“18. Thus, there is no dispute about the requirement of serving show cause notice. We may also hasten to add that once the show cause notice is given and opportunity to reply to the show cause notice is afforded, it is not even necessary to give an oral hearing. The High Court has rightly repudiated the appellant's attempt in finding foul with the impugned order on this ground. Such a contention was specifically repelled in Patel Engineering (supra).”
20. The High Court has simply stated that the purpose of show cause notice is primarily to enable the notice to meet the grounds on which the action is proposed against him. No doubt, the High Court is justified to this extent. However, it is equally important to mention as to what would be the consequence if the noticee does not satisfactorily meet the grounds on which an action is proposed. To put it otherwise, we are of the opinion that in order to fulfil the requirements of principles of natural justice, a show cause notice should meet the following two requirements viz :
i) The material/grounds to be stated on which according to the Department necessitates an action;
ii) Particular penalty/action which is proposed to be taken. It is this second requirement which the High Court has failed to omit.
We may hasten to add that even if it is not specifically mentioned in the show cause notice but it can be clearly and safely be discerned from the reading thereof, that would be sufficient to meet this requirement.
Discussion with reference to the instant case:”
10. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.12.2014 bearing No.sam.ka.da/nasha/registration/8106/blacklist at Annexure ‘D’ is hereby quashed. The liberty is reserved to the second respondent to re-consider the case of the petitioner after following the procedure as contemplated and in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE cp*