Madras High Court
M/S.Deepika Transports Rep.By vs State Of Tamilnadu
Author: V.Ramasubramanian
Bench: V.Ramasubramanian
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Reserved on 13.11.2014 & Delivered on 17-11-2014 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN Writ Petition Nos.24501 and 28029 of 2014 and MP.Nos.1, 1 and 2 of 2014 M/s.Deepika Transports rep.by its Proprietor Mrs.V.Revathy ...Petitioner in both WPs Vs 1.State of Tamilnadu, rep.by its Secretary, Animal Husbandry & Fisheries Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai-9. ...Respondent in both WPs 2.The Managing Director, Tamilnadu Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation Ltd., AAVIN Illam, Madhavaram Milk Colony, Chennai-51. ...Respondenr in both WPs 3.The Joint Managing Director, Tamilnadu Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation Ltd., Marketing Unit - Corporate Office Nandanam, Chennai-35 also at plot Nos.29 & 30, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai-98. ...Respondent in WP.No.24501 of 2014 4.The General Manager, The Vellore- Tiruvannamalai District Cooperative Milk Producers' Union Ltd., C 1325, (VTDCMPU Ltd.), No.142, Arcot Road Sathuvachari, Vellore-9. ...Respondent in WP.No.28029 of 2014 PETITIONS under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writs of Certiorari (ii) to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the third respondent vide proceedings in Ref.No.2835/P-I/2014 dated 30.8.2014 and quash the same; and (ii) to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in proc.Ref.No.9005/BI/12 dated 4.10.2014 and quash the same as illegal, unconstitutional and opposed to the fundamentals of law, respectively. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari For Respondents 2 & 3 in WP. No.24501 of 2014 & for Respondents 1 & 2 in WP.No.28029 of 2014 : Mr.A.L.Somayaji, AG for Mr.Bala Ramesh For Respondent-1 in WP.No.24501 of 2014 & for Respondent-3 in WP.No.28029 of 2014 :Mr.A.L.Somayaji, AG for Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi, AGP COMMON ORDER
The petitioner, who was awarded contracts of transportation of milk by various District Cooperative Milk Producers Union and the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Milk Producers Federation, either in insulated tankers or in sachets, has come up with the first writ petition, challenging an order dated 30.8.2014 terminating the contract given to the petitioner for operating seven vehicles in Chennai Metro from Ambattur Dairy to Sholinganallur Dairy. The same transporter has come up with the second writ petition challenging an order dated 4.10.2014, passed by the Vellore Tiruvannamalai District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited, blacklisting the petitioner for a period of three years.
2. I have heard Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr.Bala Ramesh appearing for the Tamil Nadu Milk Producers Cooperative Federation and assisted by Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State.
3. It appears that the petitioner is one of the largest transport contractors, holding contracts from various District Cooperative Milk Producers Union for transporting milk from several districts to the Federation at Madhavaram and from the Federation for transporting the processed milk either in insulated tanker lorries or in sachets from the Federation at Madhavaram to various districts. Though there is no pleading on both sides to the said effect, it was admitted on both sides that all the District Cooperative Unions and the Federation normally hire about 300 lorries and that nearly 50% of those lorries belong either to the petitioner or to the family members of the proprietrix of the petitioner.
4. In these two writ petitions, we are only concerned about the contract entrusted by the Vellore Tiruvannamalai District Cooperative Milk Producers Union and the contract given by the Federation. The contract awarded by the Vellore Tiruvannamalai District Cooperative Milk Producers Union was dated 11.2.2011 for a period of two years. It was for transporting milk from Vellore District Union Region to Chennai Metro Dairies using 25 road milk tankers. The contract commenced on 9.2.2011 and it expired on 8.2.2013. By way of an interim arrangement, the petitioner was allowed to continue beyond 8.2.2013 by mutual consent until a tender was floated.
5. On 20.6.2014, a new tender was floated by the General Manager of the Madurai District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited. It appears that the husband of the proprietrix of the petitioner made a complaint about the conditions incorporated in the tender to the Chief Minister on 3.7.2014. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.10384 of 2014 on the file of the Madurai Bench of this Court, challenging the tender floated by the Madurai Region on 20.6.2014. The other transporters also filed similar writ petitions and all those writ petitions were disposed of by the Madurai Bench of this Court on 14.7.2014 with a direction to all of them to submit their representations against the tender conditions with a further direction to the Commissioner of Milk Production and Dairy Development to look into the grievances and take action in accordance with law.
6. It appears that on 19.8.2014 at about 11 PM, the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Vellimedupettai Police Station, intercepted a Tata ACE vehicle and seized 45 milk cans filled with milk. He also seized another Tata ACE vehicle at Govindapuram and seized 50 empty milk cans. The enquiries made by the police allegedly revealed that the milk in one vehicle had been stolen from a road milk tanker bearing Regn.No.TN-19-X-3618 belonging to the petitioner herein. The said tanker was supposed to carry 20,000 litres of milk having 4.3% fat and 8.0% SNF, from Tiruvannamalai Chilling Centre to Madhavaram Dairy. According to the Police, the milk in the tanker was adulterated, so as to compensate for the theft. The Police appear to have arrested eight persons, recorded their confession statements and registered a First Information Report in Cr.No.122 of 2014 for alleged offences under Sections 120B, 379, 407 and 272 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that though the road milk tanker bearing Regn.No.TN-19-X-3618 was filled with 20,000 litres of milk by the Tiruvannamalai Chilling Centre, the quantity acknowledged at the destination namely Madhavaram Dairy was only 19,902 litres. The receipt was recorded at 12.30 AM on 20.8.2014 and it was alleged that fat and SNF for the milk were 4.2% and 8.0% respectively.
7. Immediately, the respondents took two sets of action namely (i) to terminate the services of a contractual employee on 21.8.2014 and to place under suspension, two other employees, who are connected with the testing of quality of milk; and (ii) to initiate proceedings against the writ petitioner and the husband of the proprietrix of the writ petitioner.
8. First, the Federation issued an order on 30.8.2014, terminating the contract of engagement of seven vehicles belonging to the petitioner for transportation of milk in Chennai Metro Area from Ambattur Dairy and Sholinganallur Dairy, by invoking Clauses 28(a), 29 and 35(e) of the bye-laws. Thereafter, the Vellore Tiruvannamalai Union appears to have issued a show cause notice on 9.9.2014. Claiming that no reply was received, the Vellore Tiruvannamalai Union proceeded to pass the next order dated 4.10.2014 blacklisting the petitioner for a period of three years. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
9. Assailing the order of termination of the contract and the order blacklisting them for a period of three years, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel for the petitioner contended as follows :
(i) That the criminal complaint registered on 20.8.2014 against third parties for theft of milk and the confession statements allegedly given by third parties, who are in no way connected with the petitioner, cannot form the basis either for the termination of the contract or for blacklisting;
(ii) That when the termination of the contract is on the allegation of adulteration, the termination can be ordered only in terms of Clause 18, which enables the respondents to direct to disengage only the vehicle that was involved in adulteration and not the whole of the contract;
(iii) That the blacklisting of a contractor is a very serious matter, which could not have been done without following the principles of natural justice; and
(iv) That on the allegation of theft and adulteration made by third parties totally unconnected with the petitioner in respect of one vehicle, all contracts relating to hundreds of lorries cannot be terminated.
10. I have carefully considered the above submissions.
CONTENTION NO.(i) :
11. The contention that on the basis of the alleged confessions given by third parties totally unconnected with the petitioner, the contract cannot be terminated, is not sustainable either on facts or on law. It appears that there had been several instances in the past where the vehicles belonging to the petitioner were found to have indulged either in theft of milk or in adulteration. Some of those instances are referred to in the show cause notice dated 9.9.2014 sent to the petitioner. One such instance was on 5.4.2014, when the petitioner is alleged to have taken delivery of 16,732 litres of milk in their milk tanker bearing Regn.No.TN-19-H-1848 from Andipatti BMC, to be delivered at Madhavaram, but they delivered only 17,388 litres with lesser fat content and SNF. Even before the said date, a series of orders of confiscation of the milk tankers of the petitioner appear to have been passed on several occasions. The details of those confiscation orders passed in respect of the vehicles belonging to the petitioner are furnished in the annexures to the show cause notices. They are as follows :
ANNEXURE TO SHOWCAUSE NOTICE VELLORE DCMPU LTD., MILK CONFISCATION DETAILS THROUGH M/S. DEEPIKA TRANSPORTS S. No. Date Tanker No. Name of the despatching point/CC/BMC/ Dairy Quantity (n Ltrs) Results declared at despatch point FAT and SNF % Results declared at Metro dairies FAT & SNF % 1 20.11.12 TN 09 AV 8236 Pettai BMC 15050 4.1 & 8.0 4.1 & 7.7 2 25.11.12 TN 09 AV 8236 Pettai BMC 4961 4.1 & 8.0 4.0 & 7.7 3 22.12.12 TN 19 X 5772 Pettai BMC 4500 4.1 & 8.0 4.2 & 7.7 4 25.1.13 TN 09 BB 6376 Vanapuram 7200 4.1 & 8.0 3.9 & 7.6 5 20.1.13 TN 19 X 5772 Vanapuram 9600 4.0 & 8.0 3.7 & 7.4 6 2.2.13 TN 09 AY 2860 Surakalathur 13000 4.0 & 8.0 4.0 & 7.8 7 5.9.13 TN 09 AY 6206 Vanapuram 9200 4.0 & 8.0 4.1 & 7.7 8 21.11.13 TN 19K 3795 Melvenniyanur 12425 4.2 & 8.0 4.2 & 7.3, 4.2 & 7.6 9 22.1.13 TN 09 AY 6278 Vanapuram 8900 4.0 & 8.0 3.9 & 7.1 10 5.12.13 TN19 X 4793 Puthukoil 9200 4.3 & 8.1 4.0 & 7.7 11 7.12.13 TN 09 AY 5315 Padavedu 15100 4.3 & 8.2 4.0 & 7.8 12 19.12.13 TN 19 K 3796 Pettai BMC 12855 4.1 & 8.0 4.1 & 7.7 13 13.1.14 TN 19 J 5461 Morappanthangal 8000 4.3 & 8.2 4.0 & 7.7 14 24.3.14 TN 09 AY 6206 Vanapuram 9000 4.0 & 8.0 3.6 & 7.6 15 5.4.14 TN 19H 1848 Andipatti 16700 4.3 & 8.2 3.8 & 7.6 16 2.5.14 TN 19 X 5440 Puthukoil 9200 4.1 & 8.1 3.8 & 7.8, 3.7 & 7.8 17 8.5.14 TN 19 Y 5728 Vallandaramam 8600 4.2 & 8.2, 4.3 & 8.2 3.6 & 7.6 18 17.7.14 TN 09 BB 6239 Tamaraipakkam 12970 4.2 & 8.2 4.0 & 7.8, 4.0 & 7.3 19 29.7.14 TN 09 BB 6084 Vanapuram 9200 4.0 & 8.0 3.6 & 7.8 20 13.8.14 TN 09 BB 6748 Arjunapuram 10600 4.2 & 8.1 3.7 & 7.8, 3.6 & 7.5 21 26.8.14 TN 19 X 5440 Partharami (Kudi), Puthukoil 4930 4.0 & 8.0 3.6 & 7.7 Total 211191 ANNEXURE-A THE VELLORE-THIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT CO.OP.MILK PRODS. UNION LTD. VELLORE-9 DETAILS SHOWING PRIVATE TANKERS CONFISCATED DETAILS AT METRO DAIRY S. No. Date Tanker No. Name of the despatching point/CC/ BMC DAIRY Quantity (n Lts.) Results declared at despatch point FT & SNF% Results declared at Metro dairies FAT & SNF % 1 30.06.11 TN 09 AY 6202 T.V.Malai CC 9200 FAT 4.0% SNF8.0% FAT 3.5% SNF 7.6% 2 31.10.11 TN 19 AY 8158 Ambur CC 18402 FAT 4.0% SNF 8.1% FAT 4.0% SNF 7.8% 3 20.11.11 TN 09 BB 6728 Pettai BMC 15350 FAT 4.2% SNF 8.0% FAT 4.0% SNF 7.7% 4 19.02.11 TN 09 AY 2815 T.V.Malai CC 15100 FAT 4.2% SNF 8.0% FT FAT 3.2% SNF 6.8% RT FAT 4.2% SNF 7.0% 5 20.03.11 TN 09 AY 6206 Pettai BMC 9200 FAT 4.1% SNF 8.0% FAT 2.8% SNF 6.2% 6 23.03.11 TN 09 AV 8236 Mandakolathur BMC 14333 FAT 4.1% SNF 8.1% FAT 3.4% SNF 6.9% 7 20.04.11 TN 19 Y 3622 T.V.Malai CC 19800 FAT 4.2% SNF 8.0% FT FAT 3.8% SNF 7.4% RT FAT 3.2% SNF 7.0% 8 15.08.11 TN 09 AY 5826 Ambur CC 9050 FAT 3.9% SNF 8.1% FAT 3.9% SNF 6.9% 9 21.09.11 TN 09 BB 6168 Vanapuram BMC 9200 FAT 4.0% SNF 8.0% FAT 3.8% SNF 7.9% 10 26.10.11 TN 09 BB 6728 Pettai BMC 13572 FAT 4.0% SNF 8.0% FT FAT 3.7% SNF 7.1% RT FAT 3.9% SNF 7.4% 11 15.11.11 TN 09 AB 6977 Pettai BMC 15209 FAT 4.4% SNF 7.8% FAT 4.1% SNF 7.7% 12 11.04.12 TN 09 AY 6202 T.V.Malai CC 9100 FAT 4.0% SNF 8.0% FAT 3.7% SNF 7.7% 13 20.11.12 TN 09 AV 8236 Pettai BMC 15050 FAT 4.1% SNF 8.0% FAT 4.1% SNF 7.7% 14 25.11.12 TN 09 AV 8236 Pettai BMC 4961 FAT 4.1% SNF 8.0% FAT 4.0% SNF 7.7% 15 22.12.12 TN 19 X 5772 Pettai BMC 4500 FAT 4.1% SNF 8.0% FAT 4.2% SNF 7.7% 16 25.01.13 TN 09 BB 6376 Vanapuram BMC 7200 FAT 4.1% SNF 8.0% FAT 3.9% SNF 7.6% 17 20.01.13 TN 19 X 5772 Vanapuram BMC 9600 FAT 4.0% SNF 8.0% FAT 3.7% SNF 7.4% 18 02.02.13 TN 09 AY 2860 Surakolathur 13000 FAT 4.0% SNF 8.0% FAT 4.0% SNF 7.8% 19 05.09.13 TN 09 AY 6206 Vanapuram BMC 9200 FAT 4.0% SNF 8.0% FAT 4.1% SNF 7.0% 20 21.11.13 TN 19K 3795 Melavanniyanur BMC 12425 FAT 4.2% SNF 8.0% FT FAT 4.2% SNF 7.3% RT FAT 4.2% SNF 7.6% 21 22.01.13 TN 09 AY 6278 Vanapuram BMC 8900 FAT 4.0% SNF 8.0% FAT 3.9% SNF 7.1% 22 05.12.13 TN 19X 4793 Puthukoil BMC 9200 FAT 4.3% SNF 8.1% FAT 4.0% SNF 7.7% 23 07.12.13 TN 09 AY 5315 Padavedu 15100 FAT 4.3% SNF 8.2% FAT 4.0% SNF 7.8% 24 19.12.13 TN 19K 3795 Pettai BMC 12855 FAT 4.1% SNF 8.0% FAT 4.1% SNF 7.7% 25 13.01.14 TN 19J 5461 Morapanthangal 8000 FAT 4.3% SNF 8.2% FAT 4.0% SNF 7.7% 26 24.03.14 TN 09 AY 6206 Vanapuram BMC 9000 FAT 4.0% SNF 8.0% FAT 3.6% SNF 7.6% 27 05.04.14 TN 19H 1848 Andipatty 16700 FAT 4.3% SNF 8.2% FAT 3.8% SNF 7.6% 28 02.05.14 TN 19X 5440 Puthukoil BMC 9200 FAT 4.1% SNF 8.1% FT FAT 3.8% SNF 7.8% RT FAT 3.7% SNF 7.8% 29 08.05.14 TN 19Y 5728 Vallandaramam BMC 8600 FT FAT 4.2% SNF 8.2% RT FAT 4.3% SNF 8.2% FAT 3.6% SNF 7.6% 30 17.7.14 TN 09 BB 6239 Thamaraipakkam 12970 FAT 4.2% SNF 8.2% FT FAT 4.0% SNF 7.8% RT FAT 4.0% SNF 7.3% 31 29.07.14 TN 09 BB 6084 Vanapuram BMC 9200 FAT 4.0% SNF 8.0% FAT 3.6% SNF 7.8% 32 13.08.14 TN 09 BB 6748 Kuppam, Arjunapuram BMC 10600 FAT 4.2% SNF 8.1% FT FAT 3.7% SNF 7.8% RT FAT 3.6% SNF 7.5% 33 26.08.14 TN 19 X 5440 Partharami (Gdm) Puthukoil BMC 4930 FAT 4.0% SNF 8.0% FAT 3.6% SNF 7.7% 368707
12. But unfortunately, the respondents appear to have adopted a kid glove approach so far and not merely let off the petitioner after a mere confiscation, but also renewed their contract on 21.11.2013, contrary to public interest. This is very very unfortunate. Today, the respondents had taken a stand that sick persons, children and old persons consume the milk produced by Aavin and that they cannot take any chance, when allegations of adulteration are made. But, the statements furnished by the respondents show that from the year 2011 upto 2014, more than about 20 orders of confiscation of vehicles had been passed against the petitioner. I do not know why the contract was not terminated earlier and why a renewal of the contract was granted on 21.11.2013.
13. The petitioner and the family members of the proprietrix of the petitioner appear to be the largest transport contractors for Aavin. If one goes by the total number of vehicles hired by Aavin and the District Unions from all the contractors and the total number of vehicles, for which, the petitioner and their family members bagged contracts, it appears that about 50% of the total contracts are bagged by the petitioner and other family members. The question as to how the petitioner and other family members came to hold such an almost total sway over the transport contracts of Aavin and other district unions, is not very complicated of being answered. Even from the representation dated 3.7.2014 made by the husband of the proprietrix of the petitioner addressed to the Chief Minister, it is clear as to how they had a meteoric rise and as to why all their past misdeeds came to be whitewashed. Since the said representation dated 3.7.2014 has political overtones, I am not extracting the same in this order. However, it is clear that the husband of the proprietrix of the petitioner has at least now become a spent force and has ultimately met with his Waterloo. Therefore, the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of an isolated incident against one vehicle pointed out by totally unconnected parties by way of confession statements, the contract has been terminated, is not factually correct.
CONTENTION No.(ii) :
14. At the outset, it should be pointed out that the contract, which stands terminated by the order dated 30.8.2014, was dated 21.11.2013. It is in respect of seven vehicles, of which, six stand in the name of the proprietrix of the petitioner and one stands in the name of her husband, against whom criminal proceedings have been initiated.
15. The termination of the said contract has been done by invoking Clauses 28(a) and 35(e) of the bye-laws. Clause 28(a) reads as follows :
"For serious lapses/malpractice in which the vehicle contractor or his representative is involved, then the vehicle will be stopped immediately and the contract will be terminated. Due to administrative reasons, if need be, Federation reserves the right to terminate the contract without assigning any reasons or issuing any notice."
Clause 35(e) reserves the right of the Federation to rescind the contract according to exigencies without assigning any reason.
16. It is clear from Clause 28(a) that when serious lapses/malpractice are alleged against the contractor, the contract itself is liable to be terminated. But, the petitioner relies upon Clause 18, which reads as follows :
"Adulteration of milk/milk products is a very serious offense. Therefore, the vehicle, which is involved in adulteration, shall be terminated without giving any notice."
17. However, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if one vehicle is alleged to be involved in adulteration, the said vehicle alone could be disengaged. Clause 18 does not admit of such limited interpretation. Unfortunately, Clause 18 is not very happily worded. It speaks about termination of the vehicle. There is no such thing as the termination of the vehicle. In case Clause 18 has been worded in such a manner that the power conferred thereunder is only for termination of the contract relating to a particular vehicle, it may be possible even to consider the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. But, Clause 18 speaks about termination of the vehicle. Therefore, it should be read only as the termination of the contract.
18. To hold that under Clause 28(a), the entire contract can be terminated for serious lapses/malpractices against the contractor and that adulteration will not fall under the category of serious lapses/malpractice, would be a ridiculous way of interpreting Clause 28(a). Adulteration is a serious lapse/malpractice and hence, the theory that a special condition relating to adulteration found in Clause 18 would exclude the general condition in Clause 28(a) will lead to absurd consequences. Therefore, I do not agree with the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
CONTENTION NO.(iii) :
19. The third contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner revolves around the denial of opportunity and the violation of the principles of natural justice.
20. In support of his contention that the blacklisting of a contractor cannot be done without following the principles of natural justice, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following decisions namely
(i) Southern Painters Vs. Fertilizers & Chemicals, Travancore Ltd. and another [1994 Supp. (2) SCC 699];
(ii) Style (Dress Land) Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh [1999 (7) SCC 89];
(iii) Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Others [Civil Appeal Nos.7167-7168 of 2014 decided on 4.8.2014];
(iv) Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Others Vs. Super Highway Services & Another [2010 (3) SCC 321];
(v) Allied Motors Limited Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited [AIR 2012 SC 709];
21. In Southern Painters, the Supreme Court relied upon its earlier decision in Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. Vs State of WB [1975 (1) SCC 70], wherein it was pointed out that reputation is part of a person's character and personality and that since blacklisting tarnishes one's reputation, fundamentals of fair play require that the person concerned should be given an opportunity to represent his case. The Supreme Court also cited with approval another earlier decision in Raghunath Thakur Vs. State of Bihar [1989 (1) SCC 229] wherein it was pointed that blacklisting any person has a civil consequence for the future business of the person concerned and that even if the Rules do not express so, it is necessary to follow the principles of natural justice and afford the parties, an opportunity of being heard.
22. In Style (Dress Land), the Supreme Court followed the decision in Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Limited and held that administrative orders, which affect the rights of citizens to property or the attributes of property are required to be consonant with the rules of natural justice.
23. In Gorkha Security Services, the Supreme Court indicated that blacklisting tantamounts to civil death of a contractor and that since it is stigmatic in nature and debars a person from participating in Government tenders, it should be preceded by an opportunity of personal hearing. The Court quoted with approval its earlier decisions in Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Limited and Raghunath Thakur.
24. In Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited, the Supreme Court held that the cancellation of dealership agreement of a party is a serious business and cannot be taken lightly. In order to justify the action to terminate such an agreement, the Authority concerned has to act fairly and in complete adherence to the rules/ guidelines framed for the said purpose. The non service of notice to the aggrieved person before the termination of his dealership agreement also offends the well established principle that no person should be condemned unheard.
25. In Allied Motors Limited, the appellant before the court relied upon the case of Harbanslal Sahania & Anr. vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & another [2003 (2) SCC 107], wherein the Supreme Court found that the samples were taken on 15th May 2000. On the very next day, without even giving a show-cause notice and/or giving an opportunity of hearing, the respondent Corporation terminated the dealership of the appellant. The appellant had been operating the petrol pump for the respondent for the last 30 years and was given 10 awards declaring its dealership as the petrol pump in the entire State of NCT, Delhi. During this period, on number of occasions, samples were tested by the respondent and were found to be as per specifications. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the haste in which a 30 year old dealership was terminated even without giving a show cause notice and/or giving an opportunity of hearing was violative of the provisions of law and the principles of natural justice.
26. Therefore, the law is now well settled that the order blacklisting a contractor cannot be passed without complying with the principles of natural justice. To this extent, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel for the petitioner is correct.
27. But, in the case on hand, it cannot be said on facts that the respondents failed to comply with the principles of natural justice. The respondents have filed a set of documents to show as to how the principles of natural justice have been scrupulously complied.
28. As stated earlier, the incident that led to the registration of a criminal complaint and the arrest of the petitioner's husband happened on 20.8.2014. According to the respondents, a show cause notice dated 9.9.2014 was issued both by speed post as well as by registered post. Both of them returned undelivered. The respondents have filed in the set of documents, the copies of the postal returned covers and the online tracking results of the speed post and registered post. Therefore, the respondents affixed the copy of the show cause notice on the door of the business premises of the petitioner on 16.9.2014. The writ petitioner admittedly took note of the show cause notice on 22.9.2014 and sent a reply dated 24.9.2014. But unfortunately, the reply, though dated 24.9.2014, was not sent by the writ petitioner immediately. The petitioner registered the same in the post office only on 30.9.2014 and it was received by the Vellore Tiruvannamalai Disrict Cooperative Milk Producers' Union only on 7.10.2014. By this time, the order for blacklisting had been passed on 4.10.2014.
30. Therefore, it is clear that an opportunity was granted to the petitioner. This is not a case of a total denial of an opportunity and a total violation of the principles of natural justice. There is no explanation forthcoming from the petitioner as to why their reply dated 24.9.2014 was registered only on 30.9.2014. The petitioner has failed to avail the opportunity given to them to show cause.
31. Moreover, law is well settled to the effect that principles of natural justice are not in a straight-jacket formula. The extent to which they are to be complied with, depends upon the facts and circumstances. Though the case on hand is that of a transport contractor, who has been blacklisted by the orders impugned in one of these writ petitions, their case cannot be treated on par with the cases of contractors covered by the said decisions of the Supreme Court in Southern Painters, Style (Dress Land), Gorkha Security Services, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Allied Motors Limited.
32. The petitioner was engaged for the transportation of milk, which is an essential commodity and a food item. When the allegation is not merely of short delivery, but also of adulteration, the larger public interest requiring blacklisting of such persons, would override the necessity for scrupulous adherence to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the third contention cannot also be accepted.
CONTENTION NO.(iv) :
33. The last contention of the petitioner is that when an allegation is thrown behind their back on the basis of a so-called confession given by a habitual offender and that too in respect of one vehicle, the respondents are not entitled to blacklist the petitioner in respect of hundreds of vehicles.
34. But, I do not agree with the above contention. From the tabular statements given above, it is seen that on innumerable occasions in the past, the vehicles of the petitioner have come for adverse notice. Therefore, it is not an isolated incident that has led to the decision that the respondents have taken.
35. As stated earlier, even from the representation that the petitioner's husband has given on 3.7.2014, it is seen that the petitioner has almost had a monopoly in the matter of bagging contracts from the respondents for more than two decades. Though the contractual relationship of the petitioner and the other group concerns of the family members has seen ups and downs once in five years, the petitioner and the other group concerns have successfully surfed through good and bad weather, at times with the help of the administration and at times through court orders. The present action appears to be a culmination of several events of the past. Hence, the last contention of the petitioner is also rejected.
36. In view of the above, I find no merits in both the writ petitions and hence they are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the above MPs are also dismissed.
17-11-2014 Index : Yes or No Internet : Yes or No To The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Animal Husbandry & Fisheries Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai-9.
RS V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J RS COMMON ORDER IN WP.Nos.24501 & 28029 of 2014 & MP.Nos.1, 1 & 2 of 2014 17-11-2014