Allahabad High Court
M/S Sai Transport vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 December, 2022
Bench: Siddhartha Varma, Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39105 of 2022
Petitioner :- M/S Sai Transport
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyawan Shahi,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Supplementary Affidavit filed today be kept on record.
The petitioner was a registered contractor with the respondents. The work granted to the petitioner was for carrying food grain from warehouses to various fair price shops. Upon a certain aberration having been found on the part of the petitioner on 3.12.2022, Fard Baramadagi/recovery memo was prepared on 4.12.2022; a First Information Report was lodged on 5.12.2022 and thereafter on 6.12.2022 the respondent no.7 i.e. the Regional Food Controller, Bareilly Division, Bareilly passed the impugned order. By the Supplementary Affidavit, which has been filed today, it has been brought to our notice that subsequently in a very hurried manner, even a tender had been floated for the appointment of a new transporter.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the chronology of events is seen, it would become clear that the respondents were in a hot haste to blacklist the petitioner and to appoint a fresh transporter. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the contract itself under clause 1.8 categorically states that if the contract had to be cancelled/suspended or the petitioner had to be blacklisted, then these had to be preceded by a show-cause notice and an opportunity of hearing was a must. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Gorkha Security Services vs. Government of NCT of Delhi reported in AIR 2014 SC 3371 states that before the cancellation of a contract or before blacklisting of a particular firm, the principles of natural justice had to be observed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, conscious of the fact that there was an appeal provided under Clause 1.8 itself, stated that when there was a violation of the principles of natural justice then alternative remedy was not to be considered as an efficacious one. To bolster this argument he relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors. reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1.
Sri Abhijit Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents states that the petitioner could have approached the Appellate Court when the appeal was provided under the contract and was an efficacious remedy. He, however, does not dispute that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before passing of the impugned order for cancellation of the contract and for blacklisting the petitioner.
Having heard Sri Amit Saxena, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Satyawan Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhijit Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents, the Court is of the view that the order dated 6.12.2022 definitely could not be sustained in the eyes of law as it was not preceded by any show-cause notice and the petitioner was also not granted any opportunity of hearing. We further find that the order impugned was passed in a hot haste. The erring vehicle was found to have committed the error on 3.12.2022. The recovery memo was prepared on 4.12.2022. The First Information Report was lodged on 5.12.2022 and the impugned order was passed on 6.12.2022. We also find from the record that even a tender has been issued for appointment of a fresh transporter. Thus, not only the order was bad for lack of observance of the principles of natural justice but it also smacks of malice on the part of the respondents.
Under such circumstances, the impugned order dated 6.12.2022 passed by the Regional Food Controller, Bareilly Division, Bareilly is quashed and is set aside. Any consequential action would also thus remain in abeyance. It shall, however, be open to the State authorities to take action as per law after observing the principles of natural justice.
The writ petition, accordingly, stands allowed.
Order Date :- 23.12.2022
GS
(Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.) (Siddhartha Varma, J.)
