Sri Pruthviraj B vs The Managing Director
2024 Latest Caselaw 25435 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri Pruthviraj B vs The Managing Director on 25 October, 2024

                          -1-




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

                        BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

         WRIT PETITION No.1024/2017 (GM-FOR)

BETWEEN:

1 . SRI PRUTHVIRAJ B.,
    S/O LATE S. A. BYRAPPA,
    AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
    R/AT M/S MARUTHI ENTERPRISES,
    No. 4/8, JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE,
    OPPOSITE MARUTHI WEIGH BRIDGE,
    KUNIGAL MAIN ROAD,
    NELAMANGALA ,
    BANGALORE - 562123.
                                          ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI SUYOG HERALE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
       KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
       'VANA VIKASA' 18TH CROSS,
       MALLESHWARAM,
       BENGALURU - 560003.

2.     THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
       KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
       SHIMOGA ZONE, SHIMOGA-577201,
       KARNATAKA STATE.

3.     THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
       KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
       No.C-43, ITI COLONY,
       SOUTH ZONE, DOORAVANI NAGAR,
       OLD MADRAS ROAD,
                               -2-




      K. R. PURAM,
      BENGALURU - 560016.

4.    THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
      AND REGIONAL MANAGER (RMP),
      M/S KARNATAKA STATE FOREST
      INDUSTRIES CORPORATION,
      RMP UNIT, "VANA VIKASA" ,
      18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
      BENGALURU - 560003.
                                                ...RESPONDENTS

(BY MS. ANANYA RAI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI M.V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.3.2016 PASSED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND


                        C.A.V. ORDER

The instant writ petition challenging the order dated

29.03.2016 passed by respondent No.3 in No.KAAAAANINI:

VIVYA:BNG.V.MARATA:EMD:2015-16/1223, Annexure-A.

2. Heard Sri Suyog Herele, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Ms. Ananya Rai, learned counsel for Sri M.V. Charati, learned

counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

3. The petitioner is a contractor engaged in cutting and

transporting timber/wood. The petitioner participated in the e-

procurement tender published on 05.05.2015 and was declared

the successful bidder. The respondent corporation executed the

agreement on 28.07.2015. The tender period was extended.

4. Respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice dated

01.03.2016 requiring the petitioner to explain why he should not

be blacklisted. The show cause notice was based on the

statements of drivers of two lorries seized carrying Eucalyptus

with bark wood without authorization. The show cause notice is

under the premise that the seized lorries and the wood belonged

to the petitioner and such illegal transportation was at his

instance.

4.1 The petitioner filed a reply to the show cause notice denying

all the allegations.

5. Respondent No.3, by order dated 29.03.2016, passed an

order blacklisting the petitioner for a period of five years or till

further orders and also forfeiting the Earnest Money Deposit

(EMD) and Security Deposit.

6. Sri Suyog Herele, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, submits that the petitioner is a reputed contractor

carrying on the work in the transportation of wood for many

years. There are no instances of any illegality against the

petitioner. It is submitted that the show cause notice is based on

the statements of the lorry drivers. The statements of the drivers

relied on to issue show cause notice are not provided to the

petitioner to rebut the same. It is submitted that upon perusal of

the statements of the lorry drivers, it is not evident that the

lorries belonged to the petitioner and such illegal transportation

was at the instance of the petitioner. It is further submitted that

the impugned order seriously prejudiced the petitioner's right to

conduct business. The order of blacklisting has a severe

consequence on the petitioner participating in any tender process.

The order impugned violates principles of natural justice as no

personal hearing is provided.

7. Ms. Ananya Rai, learned counsel for Sri M V Charati, learned

counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 4, submits that the petitioner

was granted a fair opportunity through a detailed show cause

notice. The petitioner has given a vague technical reply. The

petitioner has not attempted to provide any explanation to the

allegations made in the show cause notice except denying the

allegations. The statements of the drivers and further enquiry

revealed that the transportation of wood was at the instance of

the petitioner and the same is illegal. It is submitted that unless

the statute provides for a personal hearing, the petitioner having

been granted an opportunity to submit his reply, the order

impugned will not suffer from any irregularities.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents relied on the following

judgments to contend that unless the statute provides for

personal hearing, the same cannot be extended merely on being

asked. It is submitted that sufficient opportunity to file a reply

would comply with the requirement of fair opportunity and

principles of justice.

(i) The State of Maharashtra and others vs. Lok

Shikshan Sanstha and others,

(AIR 1973 SC 588);

(ii) Union of India vs. Jyoti Prakash Mitter,

(AIR 1971 SC 1093);

(iii) Union of India and another vs. M/s. Jesus

Sales Corporation, (AIR 1996 SC 1509); and

(iv) Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Limited and

another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and

another [(2020) 18 SCC 550].

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused writ

papers.

10. The petitioner is a contractor and was awarded the contract

to cut and transport the wood. The petitioner was visited with

show cause notice to forfeit EMD and Security Deposit and to

blacklist the petitioner. The show cause notice is based on the

statements of the lorry drivers. From the statements, it is

inferred that the lorries loaded with wood belong to the petitioner

and that the illegal transportation of wood was done at the

instruction of the petitioner.

11. The show cause notice refers to severe allegations. The

consequence of the allegations would seriously prejudice the

petitioner in carrying on the business, and the blacklisting would

be a denial of opportunity to carry on the business, which is

nothing but a civil death. The action of blacklisting being severe,

the same should be arrived at on evidence, not on the

probabilities.

12. It is a settled position that any evidence, oral or

documentary, proposed to be used against a person is to be

provided to such person for rebuttal. The present case entirely

depends upon the statements of the lorry drivers. There is no

evidence on record that the statements were provided to the

petitioner for rebuttal. If the statements were provided, the

petitioner has an opportunity to cross-examine the lorry drivers.

The perusal of the statements of drivers available on record

would prima facie indicate that the statements would not directly

involve the petitioner. The statements refer to the instruction of

the petitioner's agent. The statements of the lorry drivers cannot

be considered as conclusive proof of evidence unless put to test of

cross-examination. The statements must be proved with

corroborative evidence, which is unavailable in the present case.

In such circumstances, it cannot be held that the opportunity to

file a reply to the show cause notice is sufficient.

13. The order impugned is to be set aside only on limited

grounds. Firstly, the show cause notice has not provided the

statements of the lorry drivers, which is the basis. Though there

is an indication of using the statements against the petitioner, the

statements were not provided to the petitioner for rebuttal. It is

a settled position that the evidence proposed to be used against a

person should be provided with such evidence for rebuttal. Once

the statements are provided, the petitioner has the right of cross-

examination. In the present case, the above exercise and

compliance is conspicuously absent. Secondly, on prima facie

consideration of the statements of the lorry drivers, the

petitioner's involvement in the alleged cutting and removal of

timber is not available, which needs further enquiry and

investigation. The order impugned is silent on any further

enquiry and investigation to corroborate the statements of the

lorry drivers with other conclusive evidence. Thirdly, blacklisting

of the petitioner has a severe consequence which needs to be

dealt with not on probabilities but with concrete evidence. In the

present case, the enquiry/investigation conducted by the

respondents to conclude blacklisting the petitioner is not

sufficient. The blacklisting has the effect of deprival of the right

to carry on the business; once deprived, it would result in civil

death.

14. The judgments relied on by learned counsel for the

respondents are not dealt with as the Court has not examined the

requirement of a personal hearing in view of the reasons

mentioned earlier.

15. In light of the above discussion and analysis, the order

impugned is not sustainable. Hence, the following order;

                                 Order

      (i)     The writ petition is allowed in-part.

      (ii)    The order dated 29.03.2016 passed by respondent

              No.3     in    No.KAAAAANINI:VIVYA:BNG.V.MARATA:

EMD:2015-16/1223, Annexure-A, is set aside.

(iii) The matter is remitted to respondent No.3 to

reconsider afresh after granting sufficient opportunity

and on the observations made herein-above.

The Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits.

Sd/-

(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

MV