Punjab-Haryana High Court
Janeshwardass Narender Kumar Jain vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 February, 2000
Equivalent citations: (2000)125PLR724
JUDGMENT V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. At the request of counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken on Board for final disposal.
2. Petitioner is a manufacturer of furniture. It was on the approved list of contracts with the Western Command and was enlisted in Class 'E' category. It was upgraded in Class 'D' category in the year 1977. It continued to supply furniture to the Western Command till 1989 when a ban was imposed on issuance and acceptance of tender by it. In order to challenge the action of respondents, petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 13583 of 1995. Upon notice of the said writ petition respondents filed written statement. Along with the written statement, copy of order dated April 19, 1966 lifting the ban on issuance and acceptance of tender with effect, from the date of letter was also produced. Because of the said order Civil Writ Petition No.13583 of 1995 was dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.
3. It is not in dispute that thereafter the petitioner asked for tenders but the same was not issued. The action of the respondents in not issuing tenders, led to the filing of Contempt Petition No. 1099 of 1996. In those proceedings, respondent submitted that the petitioner had not applied for renewal of their enlistment with the Chief Engineer, Western Command within the period prescribed by the Government of India. Because of this statement, the contempt petition of the petitioner was dismissed but at the same time it was ordered that in case the petitioner applies for renewal of its enlistment as approved contractor, respondent shall forward the application to the Engineer-in-Chief, Army Headquarters, New Delhi and deal with the same thereafter on receipt of appropriate instructions from the competent authority. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner applies for renewal of its enlistment as approved contractor on 9.1.1997 and thereafter gave many reminders for taking action on its application. Respondent, vide letter dated 3.2.1998, informed the petitioner that renewal of enlistment of petitioner firm has not been approved by the Registering Authority. Petitioner was also informed that it stands delisted from the approved list of contractors with the Western Command. It is this order dated 3.2.1998 which is under challenge in this writ petition.
4. Upon notice of the writ petition, respondents have filed a detailed reply but no reason whatsoever has been given therein why petitioner's application for renewal of its enlistment as approved contractor, was rejected. However, in reply to Civil Misc. No.30069 of 1999, it has been submitted by the respondents that according to instructions issued by the Government of India, contractors whose contract had been cancelled during the last 5 years, are not entitled to be re-enlisted. Counsel for the respondents has contended that on 5.2.1997, contract in regard to supply of furniture relating to Bareily Zone of the petitioner firm was cancelled and, therefore, petitioner's request for re-enlistment was declined.
5. On going through order dated 3.2.1998 (Annexure P-17), I find that no such reason has been given in the said order. In fact, the written statement which has been filed in response to the writ petition, does not contain any reason in this regard. It is only in reply to the civil misc. application that such a reason has been advanced by the respondents, Learned counsel for the respondents fairly concedes that the petitioner was not informed that its application for re-enlistment has been declined because its contract was cancelled meaning thereby that the petitioner, at no stage, was afforded an opportunity to submit its explanation. It is judicially acknowledged, that when an authority seeks to place reliance on any adverse material gathered at the back of the applicant to which he had no prior opportunity to meet or explain such material, principles of natural justice do require that before taking a decision to reject the application, such material or gist thereof must be brought to the notice of the applicant and an opportunity given to meet the grounds or such material. It would then be open to the party to make a representation in that behalf or he may place any other material in support of his contention to persuade the authority to come to a different conclusion. In this case, admittedly, such a procedure was not followed. Accordingly, order dated 3.2.1998 impugned in this petition cannot be sustained being in violation of the principles of natural justice.
6. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and impugned order dated 3.2.1998 quashed. It is ordered that in case the petitioner applies for re-enlistment as an approved contractor, the respondents shall decide the same in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt thereof.
7. However, there shall be no order as to costs.