Orissa High Court
Shri Artatran Bhuyan vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opp. ... on 2 June, 2021
Author: Savitri Ratho
Bench: Savitri Ratho
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.16783 of 2021
Shri Artatran Bhuyan, proprietor
of M/s. Urmila Steel Fabrication .... Petitioner
Mr.S. Padhy, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others .... Opp. Parties
Mrs.S. Pattanayak, Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
Order No. 02.06.2021
02. 1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode, in the Vacation Court.
2. The Petitioner who claims to be the Proprietor of M/s.Urmila Steel Fabrication has filed this petition challenging a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 22nd April, 2021 issued by the Chief Engineer (CE), Mechanical in the office of the Engineer-In-Chief, Water Resources Department, Odisha (Opposite Party No.3) on the ground that the said SCN is without jurisdiction.
3. The Petitioner has impleaded in their respective individual capacities, the CE who issued the SCN as well as the Superintending Engineer (SE) whose report and letter dated 7th April, 2021 submitted to the CE have been enclosed with the Page 1 of 4 // 2 // SCN. He has so impleaded them since he alleges malafides against them.
4. The case of the Petitioner is that he is a whistleblower who has been exposing the corrupt deeds of Opposite Parties 3 and
4. He states that earlier he filed W.P.(C) No.4067 of 2018 in this Court in which an order was passed on 21st June, 2018 directing registration of an F.I.R. against Opposite Party No.2. According to the Petitioner is only in retaliation to the said action that the impugned SCN has been issued to him.
5. On the face of it, the present writ petition raises disputed questions of fact. The SCN refers to an incident of 24th March, 2021 in which the Petitioner allegedly entered the premises of the Mechanical Division, Bhubaneswar after office hours and tried to snatch away important tender files from the estimating branch for which an F.I.R. was lodged against him in the Nayapalli Police Station, Bhubaneswar under Sections 341, 353 and 448 of the I.P.C. While the Petitioner does not dispute that he entered the above premises after office hours he denies that he tried to snatch away files. Therefore, the very basis of the SCN is sought to be disputed by the Petitioner.
6. The Court put to Mr. Padhy, learned counsel for the Petitioner, that since the investigation is in progress a clearer picture of the incident is likely to emerge when the police files a report. The present petition which has been filed against a SCN is, therefore, premature since an order thereon is yet to be Page 2 of 4 // 3 // passed. Nevertheless, Mr. Padhi kept insisting on arguing the petition citing the decision in M/s. Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharastra (2006) 12 SCC 33 since according to the Petitioner, the CE had no jurisdiction to issue the SCN since the Petitioner was not registered as a contractor with the PWD and therefore could not be blacklisted.
7. Given that the Petitioner is yet to reply to the SCN in which he obviously can raise all defences both as to jurisdiction as well as to merits, a plain reading of the SCN does not indicate that it has been issued in order to blacklist the Petitioner. Nevertheless, Mr. Padhy refers to the enclosed report of the SE to the CE which refers to the relevant provisions of the OPWD Code which provides for black listing of a contractor. At the same time Mr. Padhy himself points out that the Petitioner has not been registered as contractor with the P.W.D.
8. Viewed from any angle, it appears to this Court that the present petition is premature. It is not yet clear whether Petitioner can at all be blacklisted under the OPWD Code. There is, in fact, no averment in the petition that as a result of the proposed action of blacklisting the Petitioner will be prevented from participating in tenders. Admittedly the Petitioner has not yet participated in any tender of the P.W.D.
9. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court is at this stage not inclined to entertain this petition. Withotu expressing any opinion on any of the Petitioner's contentions or on the stand Page 3 of 4 // 4 // of the Opposite Parties in response thereto, the petition is dismissed.
10. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court's website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court's Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court's Notice No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice (Savitri Ratho) Judge KC Bisoi Page 4 of 4