Kunal Tyagi Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1027511
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided OnSep-12-2013
AppellantKunal Tyagi
RespondentThe State of Jharkhand and ors
Excerpt:
in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi. writ petition (c).no. 3356 of 2012 kunal tyagi . . . . . petitioner. versus 1. state of jharkhand 2. deputy commissioner,godda 3. district panchayat raj officer, godda 4. district supply officer, godda . . . . . respondents. ----- coram : the honble mr. justice prashant kumar for the petitioners : m/s saibal mitra and p.k.verma for the respondents : m/s binoda nand tiwary,jc to gp ii ----- reserved on :20. 08.2013 pronounced on : ____/09/2013 ----- prashant kumar,j.this writ application has been filed for quashing the order no. 09/2012 dated 24.03.2012 (annexure-6) passed by deputy commissioner, godda, whereby and where under he black-listed petitioner's firm and directed that no purchase should be made from the petitioner's firm and no work would be taken from him for one year from the date of order. petitioner further prays for issuance of direction commanding the respondents to pay balance of bills, relating to supply of goods and food, which were paid after deducting 30% and 15% respectively.2. it is stated that respondents invited tender for supply of various goods during the three stage panchayat election, 2010. it is further stated that petitioner participated in the said tender. the tender committee, on being satisfied with the sample of goods shown by the petitioner, issued work order in his favour, subject to the conditions, mentioned is the work order. it is stated that petitioner in compliance of the said work order, supplied all the goods of approved quality. it is further stated that respondents utilised the said articles in the election without any protest. it is stated that later on, petitioner came to know that respondents are going to deduct 30% amount from the bill submitted by the petitioner on the ground that petitioner supplied goods of sub-standard quality. accordingly, petitioner filed a representation against the proposed action.3. it is further stated that on 16.7.2011, the district panchayat raj officer, godda issued notice ( annexure-4) asking the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be black-listed and 30% amount be not deducted from the bill submitted by him, as he had supplied sub- standard goods. it is stated that petitioner gave his reply vide annexure-5. thereafter, the deputy commissioner, godda vide his order no. 09/2012 dated 24.03.2012 concluded that the show-cause filed by the petitioner is unsatisfactory, hence he black-listed petitioner's firm and ordered that during the period of one year , no transaction will be made with the petitioner and/or his firm. it is also stated that respondents paid the bills submitted by the petitioner, relating to supply of goods and food, after deducting 30% and 15% amount respectively.4. sri saibal mitra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order and/or action of respondents is violative of principle of natural justice, because the petitioner has not been given adequate opportunity of hearing, before passing of the impugned order. it is submitted that in the impugned order, respondents discussed about the letter no. 785 dated 06.06.2010 of district supply officer,godda, but the copy of the said letter not given to the petitioner, therefore, petitioner could not give effective reply to the show-cause notice. accordingly, it is submitted that impugned order cannot be sustained.5. on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the state submits that petitioner has been given adequate opportunity of hearing before passing of the impugned order. he submits that in the show-cause (annexure-5), petitioner nowhere stated that because of non-supply of letter no. 785 dated 06.6.2011, he has been prejudiced and has not been able to give effective reply. he further submits that petitioner admitted that at the time of delivery of goods some complaint made regarding the supply of sub-standard goods. under the said circumstance, petitioner has been rightly black-listed by the impugned order.6. having heard the submissions, i have gone through the records of the case.7. from perusal of annexure-3, the representation filed by the petitioner prior to issuance of show cause notice, it appears that at the time of supply of materials, respondents detected that petitioner had supplied some sub-standard goods, which he changed. thus, it is clear that some goods supplied by the petitioner were not inconsonance with the quality approved by the tender committee. it is further admitted that petitioner received show cause notice(annexure-4). in the said show- cause notice,there is reference of letter no.785 dated 06.6.2011 issued by district supply officer, godda . but inspite of that petitioner has not demanded letter and gave his reply (annexure-5). in annexure-5 also he no where stated that due to non supply of letter no.785 dated 06.6.2011 any prejudice caused to him. under the said circumstance, at this stage, the grievance of the petitioner that letter no.785 dated 06.6.2011 not supplied has no leg to stand as no prejudice caused to the petitioner.8. from perusal of records, i find that deputy commissioner, godda, before passing impugned order (annexure-6) gave adequate opportunity to the petitioner to show cause and after considering his show- cause, black-listed him. thus, i find no illegality in the impugned order. it also appears from annexure-4 that petitioner was given notice regarding deduction of amounts from his bill, because goods supplied by him are of sub-standard quality. thus, i find no illegality in the deduction of the amount from the bills. in the work order it was mentioned that if it was found that goods supplied are of sub-standard quality then proportionate deduction will be made from the bills.9. in view of the discussions made above, i find no merit in this writ application, accordingly, the same is dismissed. ( prashant kumar,j.) raman/
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI. WRIT PETITION (C).No. 3356 of 2012 Kunal Tyagi . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner,Godda 3. District Panchayat Raj Officer, Godda 4. District Supply Officer, Godda . . . . . Respondents. ----- CORAM : THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR For the Petitioners : M/s Saibal Mitra and P.K.Verma For the Respondents : M/s Binoda Nand Tiwary,JC to GP II ----- Reserved on :

20. 08.2013 Pronounced on : ____/09/2013 ----- Prashant Kumar,J.

This writ application has been filed for quashing the order no. 09/2012 dated 24.03.2012 (Annexure-6) passed by Deputy Commissioner, Godda, whereby and where under he black-listed petitioner's firm and directed that no purchase should be made from the petitioner's firm and no work would be taken from him for one year from the date of order. Petitioner further prays for issuance of direction commanding the respondents to pay balance of bills, relating to supply of goods and food, which were paid after deducting 30% and 15% respectively.

2. It is stated that respondents invited tender for supply of various goods during the Three Stage Panchayat Election, 2010. It is further stated that petitioner participated in the said Tender. The Tender Committee, on being satisfied with the sample of goods shown by the petitioner, issued work order in his favour, subject to the conditions, mentioned is the work order. It is stated that petitioner in compliance of the said work order, supplied all the goods of approved quality. It is further stated that respondents utilised the said articles in the Election without any protest. It is stated that later on, petitioner came to know that respondents are going to deduct 30% amount from the bill submitted by the petitioner on the ground that petitioner supplied goods of sub-standard quality. Accordingly, petitioner filed a representation against the proposed action.

3. It is further stated that on 16.7.2011, the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Godda issued notice ( Annexure-4) asking the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be black-listed and 30% amount be not deducted from the bill submitted by him, as he had supplied sub- standard goods. It is stated that petitioner gave his reply vide Annexure-5. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Godda vide his order no. 09/2012 dated 24.03.2012 concluded that the show-cause filed by the petitioner is unsatisfactory, hence he black-listed petitioner's firm and ordered that during the period of one year , no transaction will be made with the petitioner and/or his firm. It is also stated that respondents paid the bills submitted by the petitioner, relating to supply of goods and food, after deducting 30% and 15% amount respectively.

4. Sri Saibal Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order and/or action of respondents is violative of principle of natural justice, because the petitioner has not been given adequate opportunity of hearing, before passing of the impugned order. It is submitted that in the impugned order, respondents discussed about the letter no. 785 dated 06.06.2010 of District Supply Officer,Godda, but the copy of the said letter not given to the petitioner, therefore, petitioner could not give effective reply to the show-cause notice. Accordingly, it is submitted that impugned order cannot be sustained.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that petitioner has been given adequate opportunity of hearing before passing of the impugned order. He submits that in the show-cause (Annexure-5), petitioner nowhere stated that because of non-supply of letter no. 785 dated 06.6.2011, he has been prejudiced and has not been able to give effective reply. He further submits that petitioner admitted that at the time of delivery of goods some complaint made regarding the supply of sub-standard goods. Under the said circumstance, petitioner has been rightly black-listed by the impugned order.

6. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the records of the case.

7. From perusal of Annexure-3, the representation filed by the petitioner prior to issuance of show cause notice, it appears that at the time of supply of materials, respondents detected that petitioner had supplied some sub-standard goods, which he changed. Thus, it is clear that some goods supplied by the petitioner were not inconsonance with the quality approved by the Tender Committee. It is further admitted that petitioner received show cause notice(Annexure-4). In the said show- cause notice,there is reference of letter no.785 dated 06.6.2011 issued by District Supply Officer, Godda . But inspite of that petitioner has not demanded letter and gave his reply (Annexure-5). In Annexure-5 also he no where stated that due to non supply of letter no.785 dated 06.6.2011 any prejudice caused to him. Under the said circumstance, at this stage, the grievance of the petitioner that letter no.785 dated 06.6.2011 not supplied has no leg to stand as no prejudice caused to the petitioner.

8. From perusal of records, I find that Deputy Commissioner, Godda, before passing impugned order (Annexure-6) gave adequate opportunity to the petitioner to show cause and after considering his show- cause, black-listed him. Thus, I find no illegality in the impugned order. It also appears from Annexure-4 that petitioner was given notice regarding deduction of amounts from his bill, because goods supplied by him are of sub-standard quality. Thus, I find no illegality in the deduction of the amount from the bills. In the work order it was mentioned that if it was found that goods supplied are of sub-standard quality then proportionate deduction will be made from the bills.

9. In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in this writ application, accordingly, the same is dismissed. ( Prashant Kumar,J.) Raman/