Bombay High Court
Chandrakant Krushnarao Bhoyar vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 10 April, 2023
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, M. W. Chandwani
1 WP-149-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.149 of 2021
Chandrakant Krushnarao Bhoyar,
Aged about 49 years,
Occu. Contractor,
R/o Rampuri Ward, Gadchiroli,
Ta. & Dist. Gadchiroli. ... Petitioners
Versus
1) State of Maharashtra,
through it's Secretary,
Rural Development and Water
Conservation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2) The Chief Executive Officer,
Z.P. Gadchiroli
[email protected]
3) Executive Engineer,
Rural Water Supply Department,
Z.P. Gadchiroli
[email protected]ifmail.com ... Respondents
Shri Vijay Morande, Counsel for Petitioner.
Shri A.S. Fulzele, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent No.1.
Smt. M.P. Munshi, Counsel for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND M.W. CHANDWANI, JJ.
DATE : APRIL 10, 2023.
2 WP-149-2021.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.) :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel
appearing for the parties.
2. The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the order dated 22-5-2020
passed by the respondent No.2-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Gadchiroli, blacklisting the petitioner for an indefinite period and dependent
upon the conclusion of the proceedings pending before the District and Sessions
Court, Gadchiroli, pursuant to registration of the First Information Report
against the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of
blacklisting has been taken pursuant to an audit report received by the Zilla
Parishad. Though the Zilla Parishad issued two notices to the petitioner on
17-4-2020 and 30-4-2020, in view of the lock-down that was prevailing the
petitioner could not file the satisfactory reply to the said notices. One such reply
was given to the notice that was served on the petitioner through WhatsApp.
This reply is dated 2-5-2020. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that thereafter the petitioner has obtained additional documents to
demonstrate that the alleged figures of misappropriation are different and the
figures quoted in the audit report could not have been relied upon only for
blacklisting the petitioner. He further submits that since passing of the order of
blacklisting on 22-5-2020, the petitioner has suffered the same for almost three
years. He thus submits that the order of blacklisting is liable to be set aside.
3 WP-149-2021.odt
4. The learned counsel for the Zilla Parishad supported the impugned action.
It is submitted that after issuing two notices to the petitioner, the impugned
order came to be passed. In view of the audit report as received, the action of
blacklisting taken is justified and there being no breach of the principles of
natural justice, no interference is called for.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that though the
petitioner was issued two notices on 17-4-2020 and 30-4-2020 to which he
replied on 2-5-2020, there was no opportunity of personal hearing granted to
the petitioner. The petitioner seeks to rely upon various documents to support
his stand that there was no misappropriation as alleged. Even the figures
mentioned in the audit report are sought to be disputed on the basis of other
documentary material. Coupled with the aforesaid aspects, the period of almost
three years has lapsed since passing of the impugned order.
6. In these facts, in our view, the interest of justice would be served if
reasonable opportunity is granted to the petitioner to meet the contents of the
notices dated 17-4-2020 and 30-4-2020 by filing an additional reply along with
the documents on which he desires to rely. After considering all the aforesaid
material and hearing the petitioner, the respondent No.2-Chief Executive Officer
shall pass separate order as to whether the action of blacklisting is required to be
taken against the petitioner. While doing so, the fact that the petitioner was on
the blacklist for a period of almost three years shall be kept in mind.
7. To enable the respondent No.2-Chief Executive Officer to consider the
aforesaid aspects, the petitioner shall within a period of three weeks from today
file an additional reply to the notices dated 17-4-2020 and 30-4-2020. The Chief
Executive Officer shall thereafter within a period of four weeks pass a fresh order
4 WP-149-2021.odt
in accordance with law. The observations made hereinabove shall be kept in
mind by the Chief Executive Officer while passing a fresh order.
8. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is allowed. The order
dated 22-5-2020 passed by the respondent No.1-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla
Parishad, Gadchiroli is set aside to enable him to pass a fresh order in
accordance with law.
9. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs.
(M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) (A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
LANJEWAR
