Calcutta High Court
Pranab Bose vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 June, 2023
OD-5
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
WPO/742/2023
PRANAB BOSE
VS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA
Date : 13th June, 2023
Appearance
Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Arif Ali, Adv.
Mr. Sarban Bhattacharya, Adv.
Mr. Abhidipto Tarafder, Adv.
...for the petitioner
Ms. Oisani Mukherjee, Adv.
..for the respondent no. 1
Mr. Anup Kanti Podder, Adv.
Mr. Kamran Alam, Adv.
...for the respondent nos. 2 to 7
The Court:- The petitioner's challenge is limited. By virtue of the impugned
communication dated March 14, 2023, the respondent authorities virtually
blacklisted the petitioner by debarring the petitioner from participating in future
tenders for any work of the Airport Authority of India (AAI) in any name and style
for a period of one year with effect from the date of the issue of the said order.
It is noteworthy that the petitioner has its office in Kolkata, which is
within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that no hearing worth the name
was given to the petitioner prior to the impugned decision being taken, which is
the very antithesis of the principle of natural justice, Audi Alteram Partem.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also cites an unreported Division
Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Eldyne Electro Systems Pvt. Ltd. &
Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. where, in a similar matter, the Division Bench was
pleased, inter alia, to observe that the petitioner had alleged that the impugned
order of temporary delisting, affecting its legal right and having an adverse effect
on its business, was served to it at its registered office in Kolkata and as such a
part of the cause of action had arisen within the limits of this Court, where the
order of delisting had taken effect.
The learned Division Bench had gone on to consider several judgments
and ultimately came to the conclusion that this Court accordingly had
jurisdiction to take up the matter.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further contends that, within
the contemplation of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, with regard to
territorial jurisdiction, every High Court in the country has jurisdiction to look
into any irregularity or illegality committed within any part of India, even if the
same is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the particular High Court.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities takes a
preliminary objection as to maintainability and cites a judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported at MANU/SC/1290/2007 (Alchemist Limited and Ors.
Vs. State Bank of Sikkim and Ors.)
In the said judgment, the Supreme Court had, inter alia, gone on to hold
that facts, which had no bearing on the lis or dispute involved with the case, do
not give rise to the cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the
Court concerned. In the said case, none of the respondents was stationed within
the State of Gujarat, for which it was held that the said High Court did not have
territorial jurisdiction.
It is further submitted that a show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner in the present case.
A bare perusal of the impugned communication dated March 14, 2023,
however, indicates that the same does not reflect any consideration whatsoever
regarding any objection that the petitioner might have to the decision to blacklist
the petitioner for one year. Be it for a single year or even for a day, an order of
blacklisting not only casts a stigma but also affects the goodwill of the particular
concern adversely.
It is relevant to mention that Alchemist Limited (Supra), cited by the
respondents, was also considered by the Division Bench cited by the petitioner.
Hence, this Court is bound by the judgment of the Division Bench of the
same court, which also took into consideration and interpreted the judgment of
the Supreme Court cited by the respondents.
That apart, even logically, Alchemist Limited (Supra) was considering a case
where the challenge was primarily against the disapproval of the proposal
submitted by the appellant company therein, which was tantamount to a refusal
to enter into a contract/rescinding a contract. The premise of such a challenge is
very limited when compared to the present one, the latter being on a wider
footing of blacklisting the petitioner for participating for one whole year for any
work in the AAI.
Moreover, as rightly observed by the Division Bench, with utmost respect,
another logic which sanctifies the territorial jurisdiction of this Court is that the
effect of the impugned blacklisting would directly be that the petitioner would
not be able to function in any activity of the AAI from its registered office
situated in Kolkata, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court.
The same, thus, operates on a wider scale than a mere refusal or
rescission of a contract.
Thus, the objection as to territorial jurisdiction taken by the respondent is
turned down.
The respondents have sought to be highlight that the nature of the job
demands the highest standards since the same affects the safety and security of
millions of people who travel by air. Even without denying such a proposition,
the same cannot be a stimulus per se to blacklist a particular concern without
giving it an effective hearing and considering its objection/show cause.
In the present case, no objection or cause shown by the petitioner was
even considered at any point in time by the respondent authorities, and the
blacklisting was patently unilateral.
Apart from the above discussions, the petitioner is also justified in arguing
that, within the broad compass of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, an
injustice which affects a citizen of the country, perpetrated wherever within the
territory of India, justifies interference by any of the High Courts of the country
which exercise concurrent jurisdiction to such extent.
In view of the above findings, the impugned decision of blacklisting the
petitioner is palpably de hors the law and principles of natural justice and is
without authority.
WPO/742/2023 is, thus, allowed on contest, thereby setting aside the
impugned blacklisting of the petitioner dated March 14, 2023.
However, nothing in this order shall prevent the respondent authorities
from taking out fresh proceedings for blacklisting the petitioner by issuing a
fresh show cause notice and upon giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner.
No order as to costs.
(SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
S.Bag
