Gujarat High Court
Kar Agro Products Llp vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 30 March, 2016
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Z.K.Saiyed
C/SCA/2105/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2105 of 2016
================================================================
KAR AGRO PRODUCTS LLP....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR JAYESH A KOTECHA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PRANAV TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1 , 3
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date : 30/03/2016
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. Petitioner-a partnership firm had participated in a tender process issued by respondent No.2 - Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation for supply of 500 metric tons of 'Tuver Dal' for the period between 16.10.2014 to 28.11.2014. It appears that in compliance of such contract, the petitioner supplied 349.80 metric tons of said pulses. According to the Civil Supplies Corporation, majority of such supply was of inferior quality. The Corporation had got laboratory testings done in order to come to such a conclusion. On the basis Page 1 of 4 HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Fri Apr 01 01:12:12 IST 2016 C/SCA/2105/2016 ORDER of such grounds, the Corporation passed impugned order dated 09.12.2014 taking three measures adverse to the petitioner, (1) of curtailing the remaining period of contract and providing that the remaining quantity would be purchased from the market at the risk and cost of the petitioner, (2) forfeiting security deposit of Rs.15.72 lacs (rounded off) of the petitioner and (3) blacklisting the petitioner for future work with the Corporation. It was further provided that the petitioner would take back 203.3 metric tons of Tuver Dal lying in the godown at Ahmedabad at its cost within 7 days. The petitioner would bear the cost for laboratory testing and also for loading and unloading of such goods in the past.
2. This order the petitioner has challenged on various grounds. The prime ground, however, being that the order was passed without granting any hearing to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the impugned order was passed without any show cause notice or giving any hearing to the petitioner before such adverse action was taken. The order, which results into grave civil consequences, was thus passed in breach of principles of natural justice.
3. Learned Counsel Shri Munshaw appeared for the Civil Supplies Corporation and submitted that 90% of the Tuver Dal supplied by the petitioner was found to be of Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Fri Apr 01 01:12:12 IST 2016 C/SCA/2105/2016 ORDER defective or inferior quality. This was so established through laboratory reports. It was for this reason that the Corporation had to take such measures. He, however, agreed that before passing the impugned order, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner.
4. We are inclined to dispose of the petition on the short ground of impugned order being passed without following the principles of natural justice. Undoubtedly, the order, which provides for forfeiture of security deposit and blacklisting the petitioner besides other penal consequences, results in serious adverse civil consequences to the petitioner. Such an order, therefore, could not have been passed without giving fair hearing to the petitioner, which would require atleast the basic minimum issuance of show cause notice enlisting the grounds of omission and commission against the petitioner and allowing the petitioner to refute such allegations by producing such material as may be relevant. The Corporation would also have to share such material as it proposes to rely against the petitioner in order to pass any adverse order. These things not having been done, we have no choice but to quash the impugned order.
5. Under the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the validity or otherwise of the charges Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Fri Apr 01 01:12:12 IST 2016 C/SCA/2105/2016 ORDER against the petitioner, the impugned order is set aside, leaving it open to the Corporation to take a fresh decision after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
6. Petition disposed of accordingly.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (Z.K.SAIYED, J.) SHITOLE Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Fri Apr 01 01:12:12 IST 2016