Jharkhand High Court
Hemant Kumar Sah vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
WP(C) No. 6712 of 2016
-----
Hemant Kumar Sah .. Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka.
4. The District Supply Officer, Saraiyahat, Dumka.
5. The Block Supply Officer, Saraiyahat, Dumka.
6. Manju Devi
7. Fusni Devi
8. Amiya Devi
9. Pradeep Kumar Sah. ..... Respondents.
------
CORAM : SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J.
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
-----
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S.P. Sinha, Sr. Advocate.
M/s Rakesh Kr. Sinha and Juhi Kumari, Advocates.
For the respondents : Mr. Manish Mishra, GP-V.
-----
05/ Dated: 04.05.2023
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed
the following, (Per, Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)
ORDER
The petitioner, by way of filing this petition, has prayed for following
relief(s);
(a) For quashing Order No. 178 /2016 as contained in
Memo No. 1454 dated 5.11.2016, whereby respondent No.
2 has cancelled/terminated the petitioner's allotment in
respect of transportation of Food-grains in Saraiyahat for
the year 2016-17 and on the basis of recommendation and
request of the S.D.O, Dumka has also blacklisted and
debarred him to do any government work and also by the
same order the work contract of transpiration of food-grain
allotted to the petitioner has been awarded to one Pradeep
Kumar Sah whose tender was found as L-2 at the time of
opening of tender of the petitioner for the rest of the contact
period, because the said order is totally bad, illegal and
arbitrary.
(b) For direction upon the respondents to allow the
petitioner to continue the work contract for the rest of the
contract period i.e. till 31st March 2017 as the petitioner has
already deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- as security amount
and the transpiration charges of the entire contract period
which is approximately to the tune of Rs.17 lakh which has
not been paid to the petitioner, so for inspite of submission
of the bills of the said transportation of food-grains amount
to the respondents concerned.
2. So far as first relief (a) is concerned, the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner would submit that the same may be treated as not pressed at this stage
and he presses the other relief i.e. for quashing of the blacklisting of the petitioner
as well as a direction for payment of money.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed evasively denying the averments
made by the petitioner. However, the learned Single Judge (Sri Ananda Sen, J)
who is a member of this Bench on 10.4.2018 directed the respondents to file
supplementary counter affidavit in relation to claim of Rs.17 lakhs and odd which
the petitioner is entitled to get from the respondents.
4. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on 01.4.2019 by the
S.D.O, Dumka, wherein in paragraph 9, the respondents have submitted that it is a
fact that the writ petitioner has supplied door step delivery as an agent of
Saraiyahat in the item of PHH (Rice) Wheat amounting to Rs.11,68,011.00
Antoyoday (Rice/Wheat) amounting to Rs.4,36,974.00, Sugar amounting to
Rs.51,756.00 and salt amounting to Rs.41,551.00 which is in total Rs.16,98,292.00
and is due for the payment to the petitioner. In paragraph 10, it is submitted that the
District Supply Officer, Dumka vide his letter No. 815/Dumka dated 4.5.2018 has
wrote a letter to the Secretary to Government, Food Public Distribution and
Consumer related department Jharkhand Ranchi for the allotment of
Rs.17,00,000/- to make the payment of due worth Rs.16,98,292.00 to the petitioner
and upon the availability of the government the payment of such due will be made
to the petitioner. In paragraph-11 of the affidavit, it is also submitted that the
petitioner has been blacklisted for future work vide Order No. 1454 dated 5.11.2016
and he has been blacklisted for future for which no timeline has been fixed. In other
words, it is admitted that the petitioner has been blacklisted forever.
5. In view of the admitted stand taken by the respondents in the
supplementary counter affidavit, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are
directed to pay a sum of Rs.16,98,292.00 along with Security Deposit Rs.50,000/-
to the petitioner within a period of three months, hence, along with the statutory
interest @ 6% per annum from 05.11.2016 till the date of actual payment.
6. The blacklisting has been done in perpetuity, which is not admissible.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulja Industries Limited Vs. Chief
General Manager, Western Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
and Others, reported in (2014) 14 SCC 731, in paragraph 25 has held that
"debarment" is never permanent. It is necessary to quote paragraph 25 of the said
judgment, which reads as under;
"25. Suffice it to say that "debarment" is
recognized and often used as an effective
method for disciplining deviant
supplier/contractors who may have committed
acts of omission and commission or frauds
including misrepresentations, falsification of
records and other breaches of the regulations
under which such contracts were allotted. What
is notable is that the "debarment" is never
permanent and the period of debarment would
invariably depend upon the nature of the offence
committed by the erring contractor."
7. Considering the fact of this case and the aforesaid judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Kulja Industries Limited (Supra),
we are of the opinion that the order for blacklisting of the petitioner is also bad and
accordingly the same is quashed.
8. In the result, this writ petition stands allowed with the aforesaid
observations and directions.
9. There shall be no orders as to costs.
10. Urgent certified copies as per Rules.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)
Anu/-CP2. (Ananda Sen, J.)
