Orissa High Court

Sai Saburi Nurshing & Health Science vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 12 March, 2025

Bench: B.P. Routray, Chittaranjan Dash

                                                                 Corrected




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                           W.P.(C). No. 30753 of 2024
 Sai Saburi Nurshing & Health Science ....                         Petitioner
 College, BBSR
                             -versus-

 State of Odisha & Others                     ....              Opp. Parties

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

   For Petitioner                  : Mrs. Pami Rath, Sr. Advocate

   For Opp. Parties                : Mr. J.K. Khandayatray, ASC
                                     Mr. R.C. Mohanty, Advocate
                                     for O.P. No.2
               CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
                      JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
                                JUDGMENT

12th March, 2025 By The Bench.

1. Heard Mrs. Pami Rath, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner

and Mr. J.K. Khandayatray, learned Additional Standing Counsel for

Opposite Party No.1 as well as Mr. R.C. Mohanty, learned counsel

for Opposite Party No.2.

2. The Petitioner i.e. Sai Saburi Nursing & Health Science College

operating at Balakati, Bhubaneswar has prayed for quashing of the

impugned order of the DMAT dated 29th November, 2024 under

Annexure-6, wherein the DMAT has revoked the NOC granted in

favour of the Petitioner-Institution in respect of GNM, B.Sc-N,

P.B.B.Sc-N course and further debarred the Petitioner-Institution

from making application for NOC for next five years.

3. The back ground fact of the case are that the Petitioner-

Institution was imparting aforesaid three nursing courses and got

NOC for the same on 25th September 2023 (Annexure-2). The NOC

granted for GNM, BSc-N and P.B.B.Sc-N courses is up to the year

2025-26, 2026-27 and 2027-28 respectively. However, finding fault

on the part of the Petitioner regarding submission of fake fire safety

certificate, the NOC issued in favour of the Petitioner Institutions

for three courses was revoked and was debarred from making

application for NOC for next five years as per the order under

Annexure-6. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the fire safety

certificate in question, which was submitted by the Petitioner, was

for imparting GNM and P.B.B.Sc-N course was imparted in a

separate building. So far as B.Sc.-N course is concerned, the same is

being imparted in another building in respect of which NOC has

already been granted and valid till the academic year 2027-28.

4. According to Mrs. Rath, learned senior counsel, the restrictions

imposed on the Petitioner vide Annexure-6 is for the fault committed

by the Institution allegedly in respect of GNM and P.B.B.Sc-N

course only and not in respect of B.Sc. Nursing course. Therefore,

revocation of NOC and debarring the Petitioner in making

application for NOC in respect of imparting B.Sc. Nursing course

which is continuing in a separate building is completely without any

authority. Further, it is submitted that before issuing the restrictions

vide order under Annexure-6 neither any show cause notice was

issued to the Petitioner nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded

that clearly violates the principles of natural justice.

5. The DMAT (O.P. No.2) has filed a detailed counter stating that

for renewal of NOC for GNM and P.B.B.Sc-N courses for the

academic session 2024-25, the Petitioner-Institution was inspected

on 14th August 2024 and the fire safety certificate in Form-V bearing

No.FSC12041300420240000011 was submitted. The said fire

certificate, upon verification was found to be fake and the Petitioner

has no answer to the same. Nothing, however, has been attributed in

the averments made in the counter affidavit, alleging against the

Petitioner in respect of imparting B.Sc. Nursing course. The counter

affidavit is absolutely silent about any opportunity afforded to the

Petitioner either by issuance of show cause or a personal hearing to

before issuance of Annexure-6.

6. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 submits

that when the Petitioner was found to have submitted a fake fire

certificate in respect of GNM and P.B.B.Sc-N courses which is

imparted in the same building along with B.Sc. Nursing course, the

authority acted by revoking the NOC granted in favour of the

Petitioner-Institution in respect of all the courses as per the

prescribed guidelines dated 6th April 2021 (Annexure-B/2),

therefore, the action taken on the part of the authority cannot be

faulted with.

7. The fact of running of all the courses in single building is

seriously disputed by Mrs. Rath, learned senior Counsel for the

Petitioner. Reiterating her contentions she submitted that, B. Sc.

Nursing course is imparted in a different building than the other two

courses.

8. In view of such facts submitted on behalf of the Petitioner, we

feel it appropriate that the Petitioner should have been granted with

an opportunity of hearing before issuance of order vide Annexure-6

unilaterally. In this regard, the principles observed in the matter of

UMC Technology Private Limited Vrs. Food Corporation of India

& another reported in [2020] 13 S.C.R. 1175 may be referred to.

Though the same is in respect of black listing of the establishment

but the principles outlined therein squarely apply to the present case

produced below:-

"13. At the outset, it must be noted that it is the first principle of civilised jurisprudence that a person against whom any action is sought to be taken or whose right or interests are being affected should be given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The basic principle of natural justice is that before adjudication starts, the authority concerned should give to the affected party a notice of the case against him so that he can defend himself. Such notice should be adequate and the grounds necessitating action and the penalty/action proposed should be mentioned specifically and unambiguously. An order travelling beyond the bounds of notice is impermissible and without jurisdiction to that extent. This Court in Nasir Ahmad v. Assistant Custodian General, Evacuee Property, Lucknow and Anr., (1980) 3 SCC 1, has held that it is essential for the notice to specify the particular grounds on the basis of which an action is proposed to be taken so as to enable the notice to answer the case against him. If these conditions are not satisfied, the person cannot be said to have been granted any reasonable opportunity of being heard.

14. Specifically, in the context of blacklisting of a person or an entity by the state or a state corporation, the requirement of a valid, particularized and unambiguous show cause notice is particularly crucial due to the severe consequences of blacklisting and the stigmatization that accrues to the person/entity being blacklisted. Here, it may be gainful to describe the concept of blacklisting and the graveness of the consequences occasioned by it. Blacklisting has the effect of denying a person or an entity the privileged opportunity of entering into government contracts. This privilege arises because it is the State who is the

counterparty in government contracts and as such, every eligible person is to be afforded an equal opportunity to participate in such contracts, without arbitrariness and discrimination. Not only does blacklisting takes away this privilege, it also tarnishes the blacklisted person's reputation and brings the person's character into question. Blacklisting also has long-lasting civil consequences for the future business prospects of the blacklisted person.

***

21. Thus, from the above discussion, a clear legal position emerges that for a show cause notice to constitute the valid basis of a blacklisting order, such notice must spell out clearly, or its contents be such that it can be clearly inferred therefrom, that there is intention on the part of the issuer of the notice to blacklist the notice. Such a clear notice is essential for ensuring that the person against whom the penalty of blacklisting is intended to be imposed, has an adequate, informed and meaningful opportunity to show cause against his possible blacklisting."

9. In the case at hand, admittedly the Petitioner was not granted

with any opportunity of hearing before issuance of the order

impugned herein under Annexure-6. The punitive action taken on

the part of the authority not only revoking the NOC in respect of

B.Sc. Nursing course but also debarring the Petitioner for making

application for the next five years definitely demands a right of

hearing on the part of the Petitioner. As the Petitioner is not giving

any answer with regard to submissions of fake fire safety certificate

on its part in respect of GNM and P.B.B.Sc-N course and maintain

silence on this aspect, we are not inclined to interfere with the

decisions of the authority as per Annexure-6 in respect of GNM and

P.B.B.Sc-N course. However, so far as the B.Sc. Nursing course is