Ashok Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Ashok Kumar vs State of U.P. and ors.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Allahabad Decided Mar 04, 2004

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/470532

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/470532
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: V.M. Sahai and ;Krishna Murari, JJ.
Decided On: Mar 04, 2004
Case Number: Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40501 of 1998
Subject: Constitution
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Constitution
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ashok Kumar

Advocate A.P. Sahi and ;G.K. Singh, Advs.

Respondent

State of U.P. and ors.

Advocate Manish Goyal and ;R.P. Goyal, Advs. and ;S.C.

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)2UPLBEC1780

Excerpt

- .....hearing would be given to the petitioner and the impugned order is liable to be upheld.4. the question involved in this petition is as to whether before blacklisting a contractor principles of natural justice have to be complied with and opportunity of hearing has to be given him or not. this question has been settled by the apex court. it has been held in erusian equipment and chemicals ltd. v. state of west bengal and anr., air 1975 sc 266; raghunath thakur v. state of bihar and ors., air 1989 sc 620 and grosons pharmaceuticals (p) ltd. v. state of u.p., (2001) 8 scc 604, that an order of blacklisting against a contractor results in civil consequences and in such situation the only requirement of law, in absence of statutory rules, was to observe principles of natural justice.5. a show cause notice was required to be given to the person against whom the order for blacklisting is to be passed and in absence of such notice the order of blacklisting would be illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice admittedly no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned orders. the argument of learned counsel for the respondents that the respondent would give post decisional hearing to the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down by the apex court.6. in the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. the orders dated 5.9.1998 and 6.10.1998, passed by the respondents, annexures-1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition, are quashed. it shall be open to the respondents to pass fresh order in accordance with law.7. the parties shall bear their own costs.

Full Judgment

V.M. Sahai and Krishna Murari, JJ.

1. The petitioner is a registered contractor with Nagar Nigam, Aligarh. He took contract for construction of shops in the year 1981. After completion of constructions final payment was made to him in 1987. The State Government got vigilance enquiry conducted against the officers of Nagar Nigam, Aligarh and on the basis of ex-parte enquiry report directed Nagar Nigam, Aligarh on 5.9.1998 to blacklist the petitioner. In pursuance of this direction of the State Government, the Nagar Nigam passed an order on 6.10.1998 blacklisting the petitioner. Both the orders had been challenged in the instant writ petition.

2. We have heard Sri A.P. Sahi learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and Sri Manish Goyal learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

3. Sri A.P. Sahi learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that without issuing any show cause notice or giving opportunity of hearing, the petitioner could not be blacklisted. On the other hand Sri Manish Goyal learned Counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3 has urged that post decisional hearing would be given to the petitioner and the impugned order is liable to be upheld.

4. The question involved in this petition is as to whether before blacklisting a contractor principles of natural justice have to be complied with and opportunity of hearing has to be given him or not. This question has been settled by the Apex Court. It has been held in Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and Anr., AIR 1975 SC 266; Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar and Ors., AIR 1989 SC 620 and Grosons Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2001) 8 SCC 604, that an order of blacklisting against a contractor results in civil consequences and in such situation the only requirement of law, in absence of statutory rules, was to observe principles of natural justice.

5. A show cause notice was required to be given to the person against whom the order for blacklisting is to be passed and in absence of such notice the order of blacklisting would be illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice Admittedly no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned orders. The argument of learned Counsel for the respondents that the respondent would give post decisional hearing to the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court.

6. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders dated 5.9.1998 and 6.10.1998, passed by the respondents, Annexures-1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition, are quashed. It shall be open to the respondents to pass fresh order in accordance with law.

7. The parties shall bear their own costs.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2004 Same Parties Ashok Kumar vs State of U.P. and ors. Same Subject Constitution Same Judge V.M. Sahai and ;Krishna Murari, JJ.

Constitution