Madras High Court
M/S.Muthupandeeswari Modern Rice Mill vs / on 5 November, 2024
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.(MD)No.24403 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.(MD)No.24403 of 2024
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.20726 of 2024
M/s.Muthupandeeswari Modern Rice Mill,
Rep. by its Proprietor,
M.Muthupandeeswari. ... Petitioner
/Vs./
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation,
No. 12, Thambusamy Street,
Kilpauk,
Chennai 600 010.
2.The Sub Collector / Regional Manager,
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation,
Madurai Region,
Madurai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records relating to the
impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 04.10.2024 in
Se.Mu.Order No. B1/13168/2023 and quash the same.
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.24403 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Subash Babu
Senior Counsel
For Respondents : Mr.R.Satheesh
Standing Counsel
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by
the second respondent dated 04.10.2024, thereby black-listed the
petitioner mill and also ordered for recovery for a sum of Rs.4,41,440/-
from its security deposit.
2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is a modern rice mill.
It was appointed as Nulling Agent of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies
Corporation by agreement dated 29.07.2020. The object of the work is
that After supply of paddy by the respondents to the mill for hulling
purpose, the mill should return back the resultant rice, for which, the
respondents will disburse the hulling charges to the rice mill. After
entering into the agreement dated 29.07.2020, the petitioner had
deposited the bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.3.2 crores and also paid
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
security deposit to the tune of Rs.22,90,400/-. While being so, on
14.08.2024, the first respondent had conducted an inspection in the
petitioner mill with regard to missing of 16 metric tonne of paddy (400
gunny bags), which was procured from direct purchase center from
Kamathakudi, Ramanathapuram. During inspection, the petitioner had
given a written statement stating that the missing paddy was not
delivered in the petitioner mill and signature referred by the inspection
authorities in the truck memo was not its employee's signature.
However, without issuing any show cause notice, the agreement dated
29.07.2020 was terminated and also black-listed the petitioner.
3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner's contract was terminated and also black-
listed without issuing any show cause notice. It is a clear violation of
principles of natural justice. The learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioner, by pointing out Clause Nos.43 and 44 of the agreement
dated 29.07.2020, stated that the agreement shall be in force for a period
of five years subject to the option on either side to terminate the
agreement after giving three months notice. However, the petitioner was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
not served with prior notice. Further, if there is any dispute arising out of
the agreement, there is an arbitration clause to settle the disputes before
the sole arbitrator between the parties. Therefore, the respondents ought
to have invoked the arbitration clause to settle the issues between them.
Instead, the respondents, without issuing show cause notice and without
conducting any enquiry, mechanically terminated the agreement dated
29.07.2020 and also black-listed the petitioner rice mill for lifetime. The
respondents did not even mention the period of time for black-listing.
4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, in
support of his contention, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Umc Technologies Private Ltd. vs
Food Corporation Of India and Another, reported in 2021 (2) SCC 551,
wherein it is held that mere existence of a clause in the Bid Document,
which mentions blacklisting as a bar against eligibility, cannot satisfy the
mandatory requirement of a clear mention of the proposed action in the
show cause notice. The Corporation’s notice is completely silent about
blacklisting and as such, it could not have led the appellant to infer that
such an action could be taken by the Corporation in pursuance of this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
notice. Had the Corporation expressed its mind in the show cause notice
to black list, the appellant could have filed a suitable reply for the same.
5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner also
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of M/s Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd., & Another vs State of UP
& Another, reported in 2020 (18) SCC 550 and the relevant paragraphs
are extracted hereunder:-
“14. The decisions in Erusian Equipments and
Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal1 and Raghunath Thakur
v. State of Bihar & Ors 2 as well as later decisions3 have now
clarified that before any executive decision maker proposes a
drastic adverse action, such as a debarring or blacklisting
order, it is necessary that opportunity of hearing and
representation against the proposed action is given to the party
likely to be affected. This has been stated in unequivocal terms
in Raghunath Thakur (supra) as follows:
“ 20. Blacklisting has the effect of preventing a person
from the privilege and advantage of entering into lawful
relationship with the Government for purposes of gains.
The fact that a disability is created by the order of
blacklisting indicates that the relevant authority is to have
an objective satisfaction. Fundamentals of fair play
require that the person concerned should be given an
opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the
blacklist.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
In Southern Painters (supra) the grievance was with respect to
unilateral deletion of the petitioners’ name from the list of
approved contractors, maintained by the public sector agency.
This court held that such an action was arbitrary:
“The deletion of the appellant's name from the list of
approved contractors on the ground that there were some
vigilance report against it, could only be done consistent
with and after due compliance with the principles of
natural justice. That not having been done, it requires to
be held that withholding of the tender form from the
appellant was not justified. In our opinion, the High Court
1 1975 (1) SCC 70 2 1989 (1) SCC 229 3 Southern
Painters v. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd., 1994
Supp (2) SCC 699; Grosons Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v.
State of U.P.,(2001) 8 SCC 604; B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd.
v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC 548 was not
justified in dismissing the writ petition.”
15. In the present case, even if one assumes that Surender
Chaudhary, the accused in the pending criminal case was
involved and had sought to indulge in objectionable activities,
that ipso facto could not have resulted in unilateral action of
the kind which the State resorted to- against Daffodils, which
was never granted any opportunity of hearing or a chance to
represent against the impugned order. If there is one constant
lodestar that lights the judicial horizon in this country, it is
this: that no one can be inflicted with an adverse order, without
being afforded a minimum opportunity of hearing, and prior
intimation of such a move. This principle is too well entrenched
in the legal ethos of this country to be ignored, as the state did,
in this case.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. Thus, it is clear that before black-listing, the person concerned
should be given an opportunity to re-present his case before he is put on
black-list.
7. Insofar as black-listing for lifetime is concerned, the learned
senior counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Chauhan Builders
Raibareli vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in 2022
Livelaw SC 694, wherein it is held that one cannot be black-listed for
life. The order of black-listing to the extent that it has not specified the
period cannot be sustained. In the order impugned in this writ petition
also, the respondents did not mention the period for black-listing of the
petitioner. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order cannot be
sustained and is liable to be quashed.
8. The learned standing counsel appearing for the petitioner on
instructions submitted that even before inspection or enquiry, the
petitioner was duly served with show cause notice dated 05.06.2024. As
per the show cause notice, the petitioner ought to have filed their reply
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
on or before 08.06.2024. Accordingly, the petitioner also replied vide
letter dated 07.06.2024. However, without satisfying the reply submitted
by the petitioner, the respondents conducted an inspection on 14.08.2024
and only thereafter, on 14.10.2024, the petitioner was ordered to be
recovered for a sum of Rs.4,41,440/- from its security deposit and also
the petitioner was black-listed as per Clause 12 of the agreement dated
29.07.2020. Further, there is also an appeal provision, as against the
order passed by the second respondent, before the first respondent within
a period of 60 days. However, the petitioner, without exhausting appeal
remedy, straight away filed this writ petition and as such, this writ
petition is not maintainable.
9. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents also
pointed out that the second respondent passed the impugned order only
on the instructions of the first respondent. The first respondent is the
appellate authority and therefore, the appeal remedy is only eye-wash and
hence, this writ petition is very much maintainable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
11. The petitioner was awarded a contract for hulling purpose by
agreement dated 29.07.2020. It is relevant to extract Clause No.12 of the
agreement dated 29.07.2020 as follows:-
“(12)Where there is reason to believe that the Agent
has indulged in malpractices or has mis-appropriated the
paddy / resultant rice or gunnies, the Agreement may be
terminated by the principal besides black listing the mill
apart from recovering the value of rice, paddy / gunny at
the rates prescribed by the principal time to time or
adjusted from any amounts due to him from the
Corporation, without prejudice to any criminal action that
may be taken according to law.”
12. Thus, it is clear that if the petitioner indulged in any mal-
practices or misappropriation of paddy, the agreement may be terminated,
besides black-listing the petitioner.
13. Admittedly, 16 metric tonne of rice was not returned to the
respondents after hulling, due to which, there was loss to the tune of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rs.4,41,440/-, thereby the petitioner committed misappropriation of
resultant rice to the tune of 16 metric tonne. Though Clause No.43 of the
agreement dated 29.07.2020 says about three months prior notice for
termination of the agreement, if the petitioner indulged in any
misappropriation of resultant rice, the respondents are entitled to
terminate the agreement of the petitioner as per Clause 12 of the
agreement dated 29.07.2020. It is relevant to extract Clause No.43 of the
agreement dated 29.07.2020 as follows:-
“(43) The agreement shall be in force for a period
of five years, subject to the option on either side to
terminate the agreement after giving three months notice.
The Agent shall ensure that there is a valid bank guarantee
/ valid licence during currency of the agreement.”
14. Further, it is also relevant to extract Clause No.44 of the
agreement dated 29.07.2020 as follows:-
“(42) Against the orders passed by the Principal an
appeal shall lie to the Chairman and Managing Director /
Managing Director, T.N.C.S.C. Whose decision in the
matter shall be final.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15. Further, as per Clause No.12 of the agreement dated
29.07.2020, the respondents can very well terminate the agreement dated
29.07.2020 and hence, they black-listed the petitioner from awarding any
contract from the government sector.
16. If there is any dispute arising in respect of the agreement dated
29.07.2020, there is an arbitration clause. It is also made clear in the
agreement dated 29.07.2020 that if there is any dispute arising out of the
agreement dated 29.07.2020, the disputes can be resolved before the sole
arbitrator. But, here the petitioner had misappropriated 16 metric tonne
of paddy and therefore, this dispute cannot be resolved before the
arbitrator.
17. In respect of Clause No.(37)(c) of the agreement dated
29.07.2020 is concerned, there is an appeal remedy lying with the first
respondent. However, the petitioner, without exhausting the appeal
remedy, straight away filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. When there is a statutory appeal remedy, this writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
18. As stated supra, it cannot be said that the agreement was
terminated without issuing any show cause notice and without giving any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. If there is any violation of
principles of natural justice, the petitioner can very well maintain this
writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
19. Admittedly, the petitioner was served with show cause notice
dated 05.06.2024 and on receipt of the same, the petitioner also
submitted an explanation dated 07.06.2024. Therefore, the petitioner
was well given with an opportunity before termination of the agreement
dated 29.07.2020 by issuance of show cause notice. Further, the
judgments relied upon by the learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner are not applicable to the case on hand.
20. In view of the above, this Court does not find any infirmity or
illegality in the impugned order passed by the second respondent and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition
is dismissed. However, it is clear that black-listing of the petitioner is
only restrained from getting any contract from the government sector and
hence, the petitioner can do its business privately. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.11.2024
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
sm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Sm
Order made in
Dated:
05.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
