Jharkhand High Court
Ramjee Power Construction Ltd. vs Rites Limited & Ors on 8 July, 2015
Author: Prashant Kumar
Bench: Prashant Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 584 of 2011
...
RAMJEE POWER CONSTRUCTION LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT KUMAR NIVAS, BRIGHT LANE, KOKAR, PO - LALPUR, PS - SADAR,
DISTRICT - RANCHI, THROUGH ITS DULY AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE SHRI DHARMENDRA SHARMA, SON OF SHRI B.N.
SHARMA, RESIDENT OF OLD H.B. ROAD, KOKAR, P.O. - LALPUR, P.S. -
SADAR, DISTRICT - RANCHI-834001.
... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. RITES LIMITED, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2 GENERAL MANAGER (ELECTRICAL), RITES LIMITED.
3. GENERAL MANAGER (RE), RITES LIMITED.
1 TO 3 ALL HAVING THEIR OFFICE AT RITES BHAWAN NO. 1, SECTOR -
29, P.O. - & P.S. - GURGAON, DISTRICT - GURGAON - 122001.
... Respondents
...
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR.
...
For the Petitioner : - Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondents : - Mr. Vikash Pandey, Advocate.
...
03/08.07.2015This application has been filed for quashing the letter dated 14.09.2010 (Annexure-4), whereby the ban imposed upon the petitioner for dealings with respondent - RITES Ltd. has been extended till the same was revoked by RITES Ltd.
It appears that vide order dated 15.09.2005 (Annexure-3), the respondent no. 1 imposed a ban on the petitioner or its associates including Directors, partners for a period of five years for doing any business or dealing with RITES Ltd., because petitioner had committed fraud by forging the bank guarantee issued in favour of RITES Ltd. and also in favour of JSEB and also arranging fake insurance policy in favour of RITES Ltd. It is relevant to mention that the aforesaid order dated 15.09.2005 issued after giving notice to the petitioner and after considering his show cause. It then appears that the aforesaid order dated 15.09.2005 has not been challenged. By the impugned letter (Annexure-4), and the RITES has extended the ban till the date of its revocation.
-2-It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order (Annexure-4) is against the principle of natural justice, because for extending the ban, no notice given to the petitioner.
From perusal of record, it is clear that the petitioner has not challenged the order, whereby the respondent had imposed ban upon him, because he has committed fraud and forgery in the bank guarantee and in the insurance policy. Thus, fraud and forgery has been accepted by the petitioner, because he has not challenged the order as contained in Annexure-3. It further appears from the counter affidavit that C.B.I. after thorough investigation has filed charge sheet against the petitioner under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the I.P.C. for committing forgery and cheating.
Under the said circumstances, since the petitioner is involved in committing cheating and forgery, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed.
( Prashant Kumar, J.) sunil/