Allahabad High Court
Austere Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 18 October, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 2614
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal, Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10277 of 2019 Petitioner :- Austere Systems Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Kumar Gupta,Namit Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Sri Namit Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.
2. This writ petition is directed against order dated 08.10.2018 passed by respondent 2 i.e. Director, Agriculture, UP, Krishi Bhawan, Lucknow, whereby work order in pursuance of tender of Financial Year 2018-2019 given to petitioner, has been cancelled and petitioner (a private limited company) has also been blacklisted/debarred from participating in further tender proceedings for a period of three years.
3. At the very outset, it is pointed out that said two orders were passed in respect of several establishments including M/s Yash Solutions and petition filed on behalf of M/s Yash Solutions being Writ Petition No.8212 of 2019 has already been decided on 22.05.2019 and both aforesaid orders have been set aside. Order dated 22.05.2019 reads as under :-
"Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Vipin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner in this writ petition is seeking quashing of the two orders dated 8.10.2018. By one order dated 8.10.2018 the contract of the petitioner of soil testing has been cancelled and by another order dated 8.10.2018 it has been black listed for a period of three years.
From the documents on record it is seen that a notice was issued to the petitioner on 18.8.2018 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) to appear before the Assistant Director, Soil Testing and Culture, Mordabad on 20.8.2018 with all documents. The notice does not indicate as to for what purpose the petitioner was called for. Thereafter an order was passed on 23.8.2018 by the same authority which refers to the direction of the Principal Secretary, Agriculture, U.P. Lucknow that the work of soil testing was closed till further orders. Thereafter the impugned order dated 8.10.2018 was passed whereby the contract of the petitioner has been cancelled. This order mentions that the petitioner was called to appear before the said authority and the petitioner had also appeared on the date fixed and that after examining the matter it was found that the petitioner was guilty of grave irregularities in the matter of obtaining contract of soil testing and culture and of forming a cartel for the execution of works of soil testing and culture.
What was the charge against the petitioner of which it may be stated to be guilty, what was the cartel created and for what purpose, nothing has been mentioned. The alleged irregularities have not been spelt out in the impugned orders. The allegation of collusive collaboration with one Sri Pankaj Tiwari, Joint Director, Agriculture etc has not been spelt out. We, therefore, find that the impugned order dated 8.10.2018 is vague and on that basis the contract of the petitioner should not have been cancelled.
We find that in the notice dated 18.8.2018 no charge was outlined of which the petitioner may have knowledge and may be required to reply. What happened in the matter and what was the material before the authority before passing the impugned order dated 8.10.2018 cancelling the contract of the petitioner and on what ground the other impugned order also dated 8.10.2018 black listing the petitioner for a period of three years has been passed, nothing has been discussed. Black listing a contractor is a grave and serious charge. It must be done in a prescribed manner, meeting the requirements of reasonable opportunity to meet the allegations or charges and until and unless the petitioner is acquainted with the alleged irregularities it cannot submit its objective reply. Thereafter its explanation has to be considered and findings of facts have to be recorded by the authority before passing the order of black listing but we find from the impugned orders that nothing has been done in the present case. In the personal affidavit of the Director Agriculture, respondent no.4 nothing has been spelt out. In any view of the matter the impugned order must speak for itself about the irregularities committed by the petitioner and and the same cannot be supplemented by the respondents through an affidavit.
For the reasons aforesaid both the impugned orders dated 8.10.2018 (Annexures 9 and 10) are quashed. The writ petition is allowed. However, it will be open to the respondents to pass fresh orders after conducting due and proper enquiry in accordance with law."
4. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute that present writ petition may also be allowed in terms of aforesaid judgment.
5. In view thereof and for the reasons stated in judgment dated 22.05.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.8212 of 2019, M/s Yash Solutions vs. State of U. P. and others (supra), this writ petition is allowed in same terms and with same directions. Order dated 08.10.2018 is quashed. Respondents is at liberty to pass fresh order in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 18.10.2019 Manish Himwan