Gujarat High Court
Yash Corporation vs Commissioner & 2 on 18 July, 2017
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 GUJ 76
Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah, B.N. Karia
C/SCA/17119/2016 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17119 of 2016
with
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17120 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
======================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be
allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair
copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation of the
Constitution of India or any order made
thereunder ?
======================================
YASH CORPORATION....Petitioner(s)
Versus
COMMISSIONER & 2....Respondent(s)
======================================
Appearance:
MAHAVIR M GADHVI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN YAGNIK, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1 -3
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 3
======================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 18/07/2017
Page 1 of 3
HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Sun Jul 23 10:47:04 IST 2017
C/SCA/17119/2016 JUDGMENT
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) [1.0] As common question of law and facts arise in both these petitions they are disposed of by this common order.
[2.0] RULE in both the petitions. Shri Rohan Yagnik, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents in both the petitions.
[3.0] In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, present petitions are taken up for final hearing today.
[4.0] In both these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India respective petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the impugned orders passed by the respondents black listing the respective petitioners from participating in any of the contract of the Government permanently.
[5.0] We have heard Shri Gadhvi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective petitioners and Shri Rohan Yagnik, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.
[6.0] One of the grievance, which is voiced in the present petitions, is that the impugned orders black listing the respective petitioners are in breach of principles of natural justice, as before passing the impugned orders of black listing Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Sun Jul 23 10:47:04 IST 2017 C/SCA/17119/2016 JUDGMENT the respective petitioners neither any show cause notice was issued nor the respective petitioners were called upon to show cause why they shall not be black listed. From the material on record, Shri Rohan Yagnik, learned Assistant Government Pleader is not in a position to point out whether before passing the impugned orders of black listing the respective petitioners, any show cause notice was issued calling upon the respective petitioners why they may not be black listed or any opportunity of being heard was given to the respective petitioners to show cause why they may not be black listed.
[7.0] In view of the above, considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Painters Vs. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. reported in 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 699 impugned orders black listing the respective petitioners deserve to be quashed and set aside on the aforesaid ground alone.
[8.0] In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, both these petitions succeed. The impugned orders debarring /black listing the respective petitioners are hereby quashed and set aside. It will be open for the appropriate authority to take further steps, including black listing of the respective petitioners after following the due procedure as required and if permissible under the law. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent in both the petitions. No order as to costs.
(M.R. SHAH, J.) (B.N. KARIA, J.) Siji Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Sun Jul 23 10:47:04 IST 2017