Madhya Pradesh High Court
Naman Seva Samiti vs Central Wool Development Board ... on 4 March, 2022
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
WRIT PETITION No.19768 of 2020
Between:-
NAMAN SEVA SAMITI THROUGH ITS
DIRECTOR SHISHIR KUMAR
CHOUDHARY S/O LATE SHRI RAJSINGH
CHOUDHARY, AGED 48 YEARS R/O VIKAS
NAGAR ATHNER THE & THANA ATHNER,
DISTRICT BETUL (M.P.)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANKALP KOCHAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. CENTRAL WOOL DEVELOPMENT
BOARD, MINISTRY OF TEXTILE
THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
123 OPPOSITE POST OFFICE, BHAGAT KI
KOTHI, PALI ROAD, JODHPUR (RAJ).
2. DEPUTY SECRETARY (VIGILANCE)
MINISTRY OF TEXTILE, UDYOGH
BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.
3. COLLECTOR, BETUL, BETUL (M.P.).
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI C.M.TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
No.1)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 15.02.2022
Delivered on : 04.03.2022
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 22.09.2020 (Annexure
P/17), whereby, the petitioner has been blacklisted.
W.P. No.19768 of 2020
- 2 -
2. The petitioner states that it is an NGO engaged in the work of
Social and economic upliftment of the differently abled persons etc.
The respondent No.1 with an aim of development of indigenous wool
and woolens in the wool producing states in the country had introduced
a programme by the name of Integrated Wool Improvement and
Development Programme. With the aim of effective implementation of
the said programme, various projects were floated by respondent No.1
and pursuant to such project, the petitioner submitted its proposal for
two locations i.e Tikamgarh and Chhatarpur and accordingly, a sanction
order in favour of the petitioner was issued. One of the sanction order
dated 09.06.2008 (Annexure JP/1) mentions sanction accorded to draw
a sum of Rs.28,00,000/- as grant-in-aid to meet the expenditure for
implementation of Sheep & Wool Improvement Scheme for one lakh
Marwari Sheep at Chhatarpur and Tikamgarh Districts of Madhya
Pradesh. Various terms and conditions for utilization of the amount of
grant were stipulated therein. The petitioner submits that it had
undertaken the work of survey and study, Registration of flocks, project
formulation and Training etc. After completion of the work, the report
was submitted. On account of certain irregularities, an enquiry was
conducted and F.I.R against the petitioner was registered by the C.B.I.
However, after investigation, a closure report was filed before the
Special Judge, C.B.I. which was accepted vide order dated 18.01.2014
W.P. No.19768 of 2020
- 3 -
(Annexure P/6). Despite the closure report, C.B.I. wrote a letter to
respondent No.1 that an excess amount of Rs.14.28 lacs has to be
recovered from the petitioner. Thereupon, on 04.07.2014, respondent
No.1 wrote a letter to the petitioner to explain the aforesaid conduct.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid correspondence and reply, respondent
No.1 on 09.07.2019 and 02.08.2019 issued a show cause notice to the
petitioner as to why action of blacklisting should not be initiated
against the petitioner as the actual number of Sheep is lesser than what
has been intimated by the petitioner in its report. The petitioner had
submitted reply to the aforesaid show cause notice. On 22.09.2020, the
order of blacklisting of the petitioner for indefinite period has been
issued, hence the petitioner has preferred this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the
respondent No.1 in blacklisting the petitioner for indefinite period is
illegal and improper. The same is not permissible under the law. He
placed reliance on decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter
of Kulja Industries Limited Vs. Chief General Manager, Western
Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others1, Vetindia
Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another2,
B.C.Biyani Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and
(2014) 14 SCC 731.
(2021) 1 SCC 804.
W.P. No.19768 of 2020
- 4 -
others and the decision of this Court in the matter of Deep Enterprises
Vs. State of M.P. and others4.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 opposed the petition.
He submits that the impugned action has been taken strictly in
accordance with law. The petitioner was afforded proper opportunity
of hearing before passing the impugned order. An excess amount of
Grant of Rs. 14.28 lacs alongwith interest was not refunded by the
petitioner therefore, the impugned action was warranted. He placed
reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Gorkha Security Services Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi5.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
6. An order of blacklisting operates to the prejudice of a commercial
person not only in praesenti but also puts a taint which attaches far
beyond and may well spell the death knell to the organization/
institution for all times to come, which is described as a civil death.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments has clearly held
that there can be different period of debarment depending upon the
gravity of the offences, violations and breaches. In the matter of
Civil Appeal No.6632/2016 decided on 22.07.2016.
2017(2) MPLJ 145.
(2014) 9 SCC 105.
W.P. No.19768 of 2020
- 5 -
Daffodills Pharmaceuticsls Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh6, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that an order of blacklisting
beyond three years or maximum of five years was disproportionate
under the fact of that case. In the matter of Kulja Industries Ltd.1 in
paragraph-25, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "debarment" is
never permanent and the period of debarment would invariably depend
upon the nature of the offence committed by the erring contractor. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of B.C.Biyani 3 has held that an
order of blacklisting in the nature of permanent one is impermissible in
law. Such an order was set aside. The order dated 14.3.2013
blacklisting the contractor was held to be valid only until the date of
passing of the judgment by the Supreme Court on 22.07.2016. This
court in the matter of Deep Enterprises4 has set aside the order of
blacklisting when the same had already been in operation for more than
1 ½ years and it was held that the order of blacklisting cannot be
allowed to remain in operation for indefinite period.
7. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principle of law, the impugned
order dated 22.09.2020 (Annexure P/17) is hereby set aside. However,
the matter is remitted to the respondent No.1/ authority to pass a
speaking order determining the period for which the petitioner would
remain blacklisted on the basis of the nature of breach committed by it
(2020) 18 SCC 550.
W.P. No.19768 of 2020
- 6 -
and keeping in mind that the petitioner has already suffered a period of
blacklisting for about 1 ½ year.
8. In view of aforesaid, the instant writ petition is allowed to the
extent indicated above.
(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
MKL.
MANOJ
Digitally signed by MANOJ KUMAR LALWANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya
KUMAR
Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=ad36bd0a68daf2238756985812b12
526281ad9d6703a41595304a2e8195ef028,
pseudonym=3050F1D083ED3727ADE7D79B
55E8D2D9ECCF44E5,
LALWANI
serialNumber=8C3E535065CECE45851C1EF8
F4C941F5F7BBEFDAF1B1EDF887C4DEDED3
DA0AA3, cn=MANOJ KUMAR LALWANI
Date: 2022.03.04 17:32:18 +05'30'
