Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S. Pooja Constrction Company vs State Of Rajasthan on 26 October, 2021
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi, Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 75/2020
M/s. Pooja Constrction Company, Through Prop. Surendra Kumar
S/o Shri Hetram Aged 34 Years, B/c Kumhar, R/o Sonari, Tehsil-
Nohar, District- Hanumangarh.
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The District Collector, Hanumangarh.
3. Additional District Programme Convener And Chief
Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
4. Programme Officer And Vikash Adhikari, Panchayat
Samiti- Nohar Dist.- Hanumangarh.
5. Kaluram S/o Shri Chanduram, By Caste Meghwal, R/o
Lalana Bas Shyopurabas, Gram Panchayat Lalana Utrada,
Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.
6. The Lokpal (Mnrega), Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 738/2019
M/s. Pooja Constrction Company, Through Prop. Surendra Kumar
S/o Shri Hetram Aged 34 Years, B/c Kumhar, R/o Sonari, Tehsil-
Nohar, District- Hanumangarh.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajathan, Jaipur.
2. The District Collector, Hanumangarh.
3. Additional District Programme Convener And Chief
Executive Officer, Zla Parishad, Hanumangarh.
(Downloaded on 27/10/2021 at 09:14:26 PM)
(2 of 6) [SAW-75/2020]
4. Programme Officer And Vikash Adhikari, Panchayat
Samiti- Nohar Dist.- Hanumangarh.
5. Omprakash S/o Shri Chanduram,, By Caste Jat, R/o
Lalana Bas Shyopurabas, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
6. The Lokpal (Mnrega), Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 875/2019
M/s. Pooja Constrction Company, Through Prop. Surendra Kumar
S/o Shri Hetram, B/c R/o Sonari, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayat Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The District Collector, Hanumangarh.
3. Additional District Programme Converner And Chief
Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
4. Programme Officer And Vikash Adhikari, Panchayat
Samiti-Nohar, Dist. Hanumangarh.
5. Dharmaram S/o Shri Chanduram, By Caste Meghwal, R/o
Lalana Bas Shyopurabas, Gram Panchayat Lalana Utrada,
Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.
6. The Lokpal (Mnrega), Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Mahaveer Bhanwaria
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG
(Downloaded on 27/10/2021 at 09:14:26 PM)
(3 of 6) [SAW-75/2020]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Judgment / Order 26/10/2021 These Special Appeals have been preferred by the appellant-firm being aggrieved with the order dated 4.7.2018 passed by the learned Single in SBCWP No.4635/2015, 5434/2015 and 5337/2015 whereby, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said writ petitions treating them as being devoid of merits.
By way of above writ petitions, the petitioner-firm has challenged the award dated 22.12.2014 and modified award dated 20.3.2015 passed by the Ombudsman whereby, a direction was issued to blacklist the appellant- firm.
The allegation against the appellant-firm was that without supplying the construction material at the construction site it has raised fictitious bills in connivance with the Sarpanch, Gram-sewak and Junior Technical Assistant and on the basis of the same, has received payment from the Government.
The principal argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-firm is that the Ombudsman before issuing the awards dated 22.4.2014 and 20.3.2015 has (Downloaded on 27/10/2021 at 09:14:26 PM) (4 of 6) [SAW-75/2020] not provided any opportunity of hearing to the appellant- firm. It is argued that the impugned awards were passed in violation of principles of natural justice, however, the learned Single Judge has erred in rejecting the writ petitions without appreciating the said contention in right perspective.
Per contra, Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned AAG has argued that despite service of notice upon the appellant- firm, it has not filed any reply before the Ombudsman and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant-firm was not provided opportunity of hearing before passing of the impugned awards. It is further argued that after passing initial award dated 22.4.2014, the appellant-firm has preferred review petitions before the Ombudsman and in those writ petitions no such ground of non service of notice has been taken, but the Ombudsman after taking into consideration all the arguments advanced by the appellant-firm has passed the modified award dated 20.3.2015 and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the appellant-firm before passing of the impugned awards.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
(Downloaded on 27/10/2021 at 09:14:26 PM)
(5 of 6) [SAW-75/2020] The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petitions has observed as under :-
"The thrust of contentions advanced by Shri Prajapat, learned counsel representing the petitioners for assailing the impugned awards was that the petitioners were not provided appropriate opportunity of hearing and of defending themselves by the Ombudsman in the first round of proceedings. Suffice it to say that the said aspersion is totally fictional and has no foundation whatsoever. The Ombudsman, issued the notices on
05.12.2014 and intimated each of the petitioners to file their reply/explanation by 12.12.2014. Though the petitioners have claimed that they did not receive these notices but ex-facie, the said assertion is manifestly unfounded for the simple reason that nowhere in the pleadings of the review applications, did the petitioners mention that they did not receive the notices issued to them by the Ombudsman. Inspite thereof, the Ombudsman while hearing there view applications considered in detail, the defences raised by the petitioners and passed a fresh final award and reaffirming the earlier decision of blacklisting the petitioners and to effect recovery of the defalcated moneys from the Sarpanch, Jr. Technical Assistant and the Gram Sevak. It may be stated here that even in the review applications, the explanation offered by each of the petitioners regarding them not being responsible for the alleged delinquency/ misappropriation is flimsy and hypothetical. No concrete proof was provided by the petitioners to establish (Downloaded on 27/10/2021 at 09:14:26 PM) (6 of 6) [SAW-75/2020] that they actually supplied the material/ goods in question on being ordered by the Panchayat at the construction sites. Thus, the finding arrived by the Ombudsman in the impugned awards that the petitioners in conspiracy with the Sarpanch, etc., generated and encashed fictitious bills without supplying the material in question is based on a just and proper appreciation of facts. This Court, while exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, would be loath to enter into such disputed questions of facts so as to interfere in the well reasoned awards passed by the quasi- judicial authority."
In view of the above, it is clear that the appellant- firm was granted sufficient opportunity of hearing by the Ombudsman before passing of the impugned awards. Hence, we do not find any case for interference in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Resultantly, these Special Appeals are dismissed. (SUDESH BANSAL),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J 24 - ms rathore (Downloaded on 27/10/2021 at 09:14:26 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)