Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Shri Ganesh Enterprises vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 February, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 15th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION NO.24539 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
SUOM IRRIGATION PRIVATE LIMITED, THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, MR. AABHAS
MUNGAD, ADDRESS: 1, NAGARCHI BAKHAL, BARTAN BAZAR, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VIBHOR KHANDELWAL - ADVOCATE.)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
1. DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE & FOOD PROCESSING, VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
STATE LEVEL SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE MISSION COMMITTEE,
2. THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT, DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE & FOOD
PROCESSING, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
DISTRICT LEVEL SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE MISSION COMMITTEE,
3. THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT, DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE & FOOD
PROCESSING, TILLAR COLONY, AGAR MALWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
COMMISSIONER / DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF HORTICULTURE & FOOD
4.
PROCESSING, VINDHANCHAL BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, INDORE, ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK, MOTI TABELA,
5.
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, AGAR MALWA, OFFICE OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
6.
AGAR MALWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI TARUN KUSHWAH - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE APPEARING ON BEHALF
OF ADVOCATE GENERAL.)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHAWE
Signing time: 2/21/2024
7:52:35 PM
2
WRIT PETITION NO.24577 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
M/S. SHRI GANESH ENTERPRISES, THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR, MR. SURESH
MUNGAD, ADDRESS: 1, NAGARCHI BAKHAL, BARTAN BAZAR, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VIBHOR KHANDELWAL - ADVOCATE.)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
1. DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE & FOOD PROCESSING, VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
STATE LEVEL SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE MISSION COMMITTEE,
2. THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT, DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE & FOOD
PROCESSING, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
DISTRICT LEVEL SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE MISSION COMMITTEE,
3. THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT, DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE & FOOD
PROCESSING, TILLAR COLONY, AGAR MALWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
COMMISSIONER / DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF HORTICULTURE & FOOD
4.
PROCESSING, VINDHANCHAL BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, INDORE, ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK, MOTI TABELA,
5.
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, AGAR MALWA, OFFICE OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
6.
AGAR MALWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI TARUN KUSHWAH - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE APPEARING ON BEHALF
OF ADVOCATE GENERAL.)
WRIT PETITION NO.24657 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
K.K. PIPES & PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, MR.
PRASHANT JAIN, ADDRESS: 185-A, SECTOR-F, SANWER ROAD, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VIBHOR KHANDELWAL - ADVOCATE.)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHAWE
Signing time: 2/21/2024
7:52:35 PM
3
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
1. DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE & FOOD PROCESSING, VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
STATE LEVEL SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE MISSION COMMITTEE,
2. THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT, DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE & FOOD
PROCESSING, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
DISTRICT LEVEL SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE MISSION COMMITTEE,
3. THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT, DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE & FOOD
PROCESSING, TILLAR COLONY, AGAR MALWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
COMMISSIONER / DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF HORTICULTURE & FOOD
4.
PROCESSING, VINDHANCHAL BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, INDORE, ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK, MOTI TABELA,
5.
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, AGAR MALWA, OFFICE OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
6.
AGAR MALWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI TARUN KUSHWAH - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE APPEARING ON BEHALF
OF ADVOCATE GENERAL.)
WRIT PETITION No.24660 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
AGRAWAL IRRIGATION, THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR, MR. SUNIL AGRAWAL,
ADDRESS: 69/1, UDYOGPURI, AGAR ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VIBHOR KHANDELWAL - ADVOCATE.)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
1. DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE & FOOD PROCESSING, VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
STATE LEVEL SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE MISSION COMMITTEE,
2. THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT, DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE & FOOD
PROCESSING, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DISTRICT LEVEL SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE MISSION COMMITTEE,
THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT, DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE & FOOD
PROCESSING, TILLAR COLONY, AGAR MALWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. COMMISSIONER / DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF HORTICULTURE & FOOD
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHAWE
Signing time: 2/21/2024
7:52:35 PM
4
PROCESSING, VINDHANCHAL BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, INDORE, ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK, MOTI TABELA,
5.
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, AGAR MALWA, OFFICE OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
6.
AGAR MALWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI TARUN KUSHWAH - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE APPEARING ON BEHALF
OF ADVOCATE GENERAL.)
WRIT PETITION NO.26204 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
M/S. KATARIA PLASTICS PRIVATE LIMITED, THROUGH / REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR. SANDEEP SHAH, HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT: 39-43, 44-A, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE AREA, RATLAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MANU MAHESHWARI - ADVOCATE.)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
1. DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE & FOOD PROCESSING, VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
STATE LEVEL SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE MISSION COMMITTEE,
2. THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT, DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE & FOOD
PROCESSING, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
DISTRICT LEVEL SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE MISSION COMMITTEE,
3. THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT, DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE & FOOD
PROCESSING, TILLAR COLONY, AGAR MALWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
COMMISSIONER / DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF HORTICULTURE & FOOD
4.
PROCESSING, VINDHANCHAL BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, INDORE, ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK, MOTI TABELA,
5.
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, AGAR MALWA, OFFICE OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
6.
AGAR MALWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI TARUN KUSHWAH - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE APPEARING ON BEHALF
OF ADVOCATE GENERAL.)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHAWE
Signing time: 2/21/2024
7:52:35 PM
5
This petition (s) coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy involved in the present
cases, with the joint request of the parties, these writ petitions are finally heard and
being decided by this common order.
The facts are being taken from Writ Petition No.24539 of 2021.
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of Constitution
of India being aggrieved by order dated 11.10.2021 (Annexure P/12) passed by the
Commissioner, Directorate of Horticulture & Food Processing, Bhopal (respondent
No.4), whereby representation has been rejected and the petitioner has been Black
Listed with recovery / forfeiture of Performance Bank Guarantee to the tune of
Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs only).
2. In short, the facts of the case are, as under: -
2.1 The petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the
Companies Act, 2013. An agreement was executed between the petitioner and the
respondent - State Sustainable Agriculture Committee on 30.06.2015 (Annexure
P/4) for supply of Drip Irrigation System under the National Mission for
Sustainable Agriculture Policy of the Government of India. After the aforesaid
agreement, the petitioner supplied the requisite materials to various farmers in the
State of Madhya Pradesh, as per the work orders issued by the respondents from
time to time. After the aforesaid supply and due verification by the respondents,
the payments were made to the petitioner.
2.2 At the end of completion of three years guarantee period, some of the
farmers made a complaint about short supply, double payment and non supply of
Drip Irrigation System by the petitioner. Respondent No.4 issued demand notice
dated 15.03.2018, 16.03.2018 and 21.03.2018 to the petitioner directing to deposit
60% amount of its total supply i.e. Rs.7,44,83,528/- (rupees seven crore forty four
lakhs eighty three thousand five hundred twenty eight only) and also threatened to
register First Information Report (FIR) against the Directors of the petitioner
company.
2.3 According to the petitioner, the aforesaid demand was issued, without
issuing any show cause notice and / or without giving any opportunity of hearing
to them. The demand was issued to the petitioner based on Enquiry Report dated
11.01.2018, but the petitioner was never disclosed about the contents of the
Enquiry Report and even they were not supplied a copy of the same.
2.4 The petitioner and other similar companies approached this Court by way of
numerous writ petitions. Vide order dated 12.09.2018 (Annexure P/6), all the
twenty three writ petitions were dismissed by the Writ Court. Being aggrieved by
the dismissal of the writ petitions, all the petitioners preferred writ appeals before
this Court. Vide order dated 26.04.2019 (Annexure P/7), writ appeals were
allowed by directing the respondents to given an opportunity of hearing to the
appellants / petitioners and pass a fresh order, in accordance with law.
2.5 In compliance of order dated 26.04.2019 (Annexure P/7), the Deputy
Director, Horticulture, District Agar Malwa (M.P.) issued notice on 29.01.2021
(Annexure P/8) to the petitioner directing the petitioner to appear in the Office of
Deputy Director, Horticulture, District Agar Malwa on 05.02.2021. It is submitted
by learned counsel, that the petitioner appeared before the Committee constituted
vide communication dated 05.12.2020 issued by respondent No.4 and demanded
copy of Enquiry Report and other relevant documents. Thereafter, vide notice
dated 14.07.2021 (Annexure P/9) the petitioner was directed to appear before the
Commissioner, Horticulture & Food Processing, Bhopal, as the Deputy Director,
Horticulture, District Agar Malwa is not a senior level officer. The petitioner
appeared before respondent No.4 on 23.07.2021 and demanded copy of Enquiry
Report dated 11.01.2018 prepared by the Committee, so that they can file an
effective reply. The petitioner submitted written submissions on 30.09.2021
(Annexure P/11) and then final impugned order dated 11.10.2021 (Annexure P/12)
has been passed. Hence, this petition before this Court.
2.6 It is important to mention here that out of twenty three writ petitions, only
five writ petitioners have filed these petitions before this Court, as the
Commissioner / Director of Directorate of Horticulture & Food Processing, Bhopal
has passed adverse impugned orders against them only. Rest of the petitioners
either have accepted the order or proceedings have been dropped against them by
the respondents.
3. The petitioners are assailing the impugned order (s) on the ground that the
impugned order is a non speaking order and all the grounds raised by them have
not been meted out by the Director of Directorate of Horticulture & Food
Processing, Bhopal, which shows total non-application of mind. The entire written
submission has been rejected by observing that it is not acceptable and recovery of
Rs.7,44,83,528/- (rupees seven crore forty four lakhs eighty three thousand five
hundred twenty eight only) has been upheld. Therefore, it cannot be said to be an
adjudication by the Authority on merit of the case, hence the impugned order is
liable to be set aside.
4. It is further submitted by learned counsels appearing for the petitioners that
an FIR was also registered against the petitioner (s) in which the detailed
investigation was carried. During the investigation, the Station House Officer
recorded statement of agriculturists and they have categorically stated that all drip
instruments / drip materials were supplied to them by the Company. Learned I.O.
did not find any offence or illegality in the supply of material by the petitioner.
I.O. submitted a report that no offence is made out and the investigation be closed
on 28.03.2020 and till date, no such charge sheet has been filed. The petitioner
received the aforesaid information under the provisions of Right to Information
Act, 2005 from the Office of the Additional Superintendent of Police, District
Agar.
5. Learned counsels appearing for the petitioners further submitted that on the
basis of the vague complaint, without any material and evidence, demand notice
was issued against the petitioner, and such a penalty as well as the order of black
listing has been passed for an indefinite period. There is absolutely no evidence,
that the petitioner either did not supply the entire material or supplied inferior
quality of material.
6. In support of the above contentions, Shri Vibhor Khandelwal, learned
counsel appearing for petitioners in Writ Petitions No.24539, 24577, 24657 and
24660 of 2021 has placed reliance on the following judgments of the Supreme
Court of India in the case of Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of
India & others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 366.
6.1 Shri Manu Maheshwari, learned counsel appearing for petitioner in Writ
Petition No.26204 of 2021 has placed reliance on judgment passed by the Supreme
Court of India in case of Kulja Industries Limited v. Chief General Manager,
Western Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & others reported in
(2014) 14 SCC 731, in which the Apex Court held that there cannot be a
permanent black listing of contractor and the matter was remanded to the Authority
to determine the period for which the contractor is to be black listed.
6.2 Reliance has also been placed on behalf of the petitioners upon the following
judgments of the Supreme Court of India: -
1. A.K. Kraipak & others v. Union of India & others reported in (1969)
2 SCC 262;
2. Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh &
another reported in (2021) 1 SCC 804;
3. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & others v. Director, Health Services,
Haryana & others reported in (2013) 10 SCC 136; and
4. Shahabad Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited v. Special Secretary to
Government of Haryana Corporation & others reported in (2006) 12
SCC 404.
7. Shri Tarun Kushwaha, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents - State of Madhya Pradesh has argued in support of the impugned
order by submitting that from the inception of supplying the material, there was
complaint about inferior quality of the material. Various irregularities were
committed in supply and / or installation of Drip Irrigation System by the petitioner
(s). A report was submitted to the Principal Secretary, Department of Horticulture
& Food Processing, Bhopal. Inspection was carried out in which notices were
issued to the petitioner (s). The Drip Irrigation System supplied by the petitioner
were not as per the provisions laid in B.I.S. The Inspection conducted by Central
Institute of Plastic Engineering & Technology (CIPET), Bhopal had submitted a
report as regards substandard quality of the material. The petitioner submitted a
reply to notice dated 30.01.2016 stating that they shall improve the quality in
future and there shall be no complaint with regard to quality. The reply is filed as
Annexure R/8.
8. A warning letter dated 11.04.2016 (Annexure R/9) was issued to the
petitioner that in future no such substandard quality products would be entertained.
Various show cause notices were issued to the petitioner for violation of Clause 24
of the agreement dated 29.06.2015 (Annexure P/4). The petitioner continued to
supply defective Drip Irrigation System and has also failed to replace the same.
Therefore, it is not a case that all of a sudden on the basis of some vague
complaint, a demand notice was issued to the petitioner. A detailed enquiry was
got conducted before sending notice and thereafter, this penalty was imposed.
8.1 However, so far as period of black listing is concerned, learned Government
Advocate admits that it is correct that there cannot be an indefinite period of black
listing and for which the authorities are ready to reconsider the matter for fixing
the period of black listing.
8.2 It is further submitted by learned Government Advocate that so far as
closure report in criminal case is concerned, it is for the Competent Criminal Court
to examine the entire material evidence collected by the prosecution and opined
that whether FIR is liable to be closed or not. Hence, the petition is liable to be
dismissed.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
10. The Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of
Agriculture & Corporation issued operational guidelines in the matter of the
National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (in short, NMSA) in the year 2014
(Annexure R/1) with an object to make agriculture more productive sustainable,
remunerative and climate resilient by promoting location specific Integrated /
Composite Farming System. To optimize utilization of water resources through
efficient water management to expand coverage for achieving "more crop per
drop".
11. To achieve the aforesaid object, NMSA directed the State Government to
prepare a scheme for promoting effective management of available water resources
and enhancing water use efficiency through application of technologies coupled
with the demand and supply soil management solution.
12. To achieve the object of "more crop per drop", On Farm Water Management
(OFWM) was introduced on enhancing the water use efficiency by promoting
appropriate technological interventions like drip and sprinkler technologies,
efficient water application and distribution system, secondary storage and drainage
development.
13. The State Government was directed to issue government orders directing all
the Departments / Agencies like The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural
Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), Integrated Watershed Management
Programme (IWMP), National Rural Livelihood Mission (NRLM), Rashtriya
Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY) etc. to channelize the front through the consortia for
activities under the consolidated and holistic development plan for implementation
of the aforesaid guidelines.
14. Under the aforesaid Scheme, the Directorate of Horticulture and Food
Processing issued guidelines and directions vide communication / letter dated
23.05.2014 (Annexure R/2) to all the Chief Executive Officers of Janpad
Panchayats and Deputy / Assistant Directors of Horticulture for implementation of
the aforesaid Scheme through the registered manufacturing companies from the
years 2014-15 to 2016-17. In pursuance to the aforesaid scheme and directions
dated 23.05.2014, agreements were executed with 26 manufacturing companies on
detail 25 terms and conditions.
15. The petitioners gave a performance guarantee that the installed drip and
sprinkler system shall work for a period of minimum three years and the company
shall give training to the farmers to install and run the system. On a complaint
made by farmers, the same shall be rectified within seven days.
16. To check the quality of the material supplied and working of the system, the
Prescribed Authority of the Society by the Central Government or the State
Sustainable Agriculture Mission Committee shall have an authority to make an
inspection and submit a report and the same shall be acceptable. The District
Sustainable Agriculture Mission Committee shall be competent to take a penal
action and impose a penalty on a company on a complaint by a farmer. Being
aggrieved by the decision taken by the District Sustainable Agriculture Mission
Committee, the company shall have a right to prefer an appeal against the
President of the State Sustainable Agriculture Mission Committee. Therefore,
under the agreement, the authority to inspect and take a disciplinary / penal action
has been given to the District Sustainable Agriculture Mission Committee with a
remedy of appeal to the President, State Sustainable Agriculture Mission
Committee.
17. In this case, complaints were made to the CM Helplines by the farmers
about non-supply of drip materials. On a preliminary enquiry, it was found that no
material was supplied to the farmers, but the payment was made to the company in
few cases and the enquiry is pending before the District Administration. The
Director, Directorate of Horticulture & Food Processing, Bhopal wrote a letter to
the Collector, District Agar Malwa for conducting an enquiry in this matter. The
Enquiry Committee was appointed on Block Level and report was submitted to the
Principal Secretary, Department of Horticulture & Food Processing, Bhopal. The
Collector took a decision to take penal action and register an FIR against these
petitioners. Therefore, as per agreement, the authority to examine and impose
penalty is with the District Sustainable Agriculture Mission Committee in respect
of complaints about non-supply / defective / short supply etc. of Drip Irrigation /
Sprinkler System.
18. By way of additional return, the respondents have relied on Clause 24 of the
Agreement to justify their action in this matter. Clause 24 of the Agreement gives
an authority to black list and forfeit Performance Bank Guarantee, if the
manufacturing company supplies substandard and cheaper quality of material or
fails to supply any material. But, in this Clause, the name of the Authority is not
mentioned, but such action will be taken only after the enquiry conducted by the
Sustainable Committee.
19. As per Clauses 8 and 9 of the Agreement, the power to impose legal action
and penalty has been given to the District Sustainable Agriculture Mission
Committee and the power to decide appeal has been given to the President of the
State Sustainable Agriculture Mission Committee. Therefore, under Clause 8 of
the Agreement, the action which is liable to be taken against any company, if any,
the Authority is the District Sustainable Agriculture Mission Committee.
20. Let the entire complaints and the material be supplied to the District
Sustainable Agriculture Mission Committee, who shall examine the material, and
after issuance of a notice to the petitioner (s), the Committee shall decide the
matter, in accordance with law.
21. So far as the issue of black listing the petitioner (s) is concerned, admittedly,
no period has been prescribed in the impugned order for black listing the petitioner
(s). As per the Apex Court decision in the case of Kulja Industries Limited v.
Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited & others (supra) held that black listing cannot be for an indefinite period.
Since the Government has no authority to pass an order of the black listing, unless
the decision is taken by the District Sustainable Agriculture Mission Committee,
after the enquiry under Clauses No.8 and 9 of the Agreement.
22. Even otherwise, the impugned order is not liable to be upheld, as it is a non
speaking order and nowhere reflects any application of mind. Such a drastic penal
action has been taken with huge penalty on the petitioner (s). Such action is liable
to be taken after conducting detail trial. The issues / charges were liable to be
framed, and after giving an opportunity to adduce evidence and cross-examination,
the charge can be established. The authority ought to have performed quasi
judicial function while saddling the petitioner (s) with heavy penalty and black
listing. Order of recovery of lakhs of rupees cannot be passed by observing that
reply is not satisfactory.
23. In this view of the matter, impugned order (s) cannot be sustained and are
hereby set aside. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. The matter is remitted
back to the District Sustainable Agriculture Mission Committee to decide it, in
accordance with law.
Let a copy of this order be kept in the record of connected writ petitions.
Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed off.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
rcp
