M/S Chhavi Nursery vs The Jaipur Development Authority
2022 Latest Caselaw 3551 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5834/2022

M/s Chhavi Nursery
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
The Jaipur Development Authority & Anr.
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hanuman Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yuvraj Samant

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

05/05/2022

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has

filed reply to the writ petition today.

Office to place the same on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order

impugned dated 07.04.2022, in addition to meeting it with other

penalties, the petitioner has also been blacklisted and hence, the

matter may be heard on interim relief.

Learned counsel submitted that before blacklisting the

petitioner vide order impugned, no notice was served upon him

proposing the penalty of blacklisting. He submitted that the

penalty of blacklisting presupposes issuance of a specific show-

cause notice in this regard. He, in this regard, relied upon a

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

Gorkha Security Service Vs. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.;

(2014) 9 SCC 105. He further submitted that before passing the

order impugned, the reply filed by it to the show-cause notices

issued by the respondents as also the report dated 03.03.2022

(2 of 2) [CW-5834/2022]

prepared by the respondent no.2, Sr. Horticulturist, Jaipur

Development Authority certifying therein that the petitioner was

carrying out work under the contract awarded to it, have not been

taken into consideration. He, therefore, prays that the order dated

07.04.2022 be stayed.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents referring to

the various note-sheets submitted that reply filed by the petitioner

was taken into consideration before passing the order impugned.

He further submitted that before imposing penalty of blacklisting,

the petitioner was served upon with notices to the effect that in

case it fails to discharge the work under the contract, action would

be taken under the terms of contract.

Heard. Considered.

A perusal of the order impugned dated 07.04.2022 does not

reveal consideration of the reply filed by the petitioner to the

show-cause notice issued to it. It further reveals that the report

dated 03.03.2022 prepared by the Sr. Horticulturist wherein it has

been stated that barring minor deficiencies, the petitioner was

carrying out the work under the contract, was also not taken into

consideration. This Court finds that in none of the show-cause

notices issued by the respondent, the penalty of blacklisting has

been proposed.

In view thereof, this Court deems it just and proper to stay

the operation and effect of the order dated 07.04.2022, till further

orders.

List the matter on 19.05.2022 as prayed.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

LAKSHYA SHARMA /202

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)