Patna High Court - Orders
Lall & Associates vs Bihar School Examination Board on 22 November, 2010
Author: Ramesh Kumar Datta
Bench: Ramesh Kumar Datta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.12485 of 2008
LALL & ASSOCIATES through its partner Jatindra kumar lall, aged
about 72 years, son of late Y.K.Lall, resident of Boring Road, P.S.
S.K.Puri, District-Patna... Petitioner
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Tourism, Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Tourism, Government of
Bihar, Patna..... Respondents
with
CWJC No.12647 of 2008
LALL & ASSOCIATES through its partner Jatindra Kumar Lall, aged
about 72 years, son of late Y.K. Lall, resident of Boring Road, P.S.
S.K. Puri... Petitioner
Versus
1.BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD (Higher Secondary)
through its Secretary, Budh Marg, Patna.
2.The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board (Higher Secondary),
Budh Marg, Patna..... Respondents.
With
CWJC No.12708 of 2008
LALL AND ASSOCIATES through its partner Jatindra Kumar lall,
aged about 72 years, son of late Y.K. lall, resident of Boring Road,
P.S. S.K. Puri, District- Patna... Petitioner
Versus
1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal Secretary,
Deparmtment of Building Construction, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2.The Senior Architect, Department of Building Construction,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3.The Principal Secretary, Vigilance Department, Government of Bihar,
Suchna Bhawan, Patna...... Respondents.
-----------
For the petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha,Advocate
(In all cases) Mr. Mritunjay Kumar,Advocate
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For State of Bihar: Mr. Ravi Verma, A.C. to G.P.15
(In all cases)
For Vigilance: Mr. Arbind Kumar,I.C. Spl.P.P.
( In all cases )
For BSEB: Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Advocate
(In all cases)
---------
4. 22.11.2010I.A. No.6797/2009 in C.W.J.C. No.12485/2008, I.A.No.6798/2009 in C.W.J.C. No.12647/2008 and I.A. No.6768/2009 in C.W.J.C. No.12708/2008. All these three interlocutory applications have been -2- filed for challenging the order dated 30.11.2007 in the first two interlocutory applications and the order dated 16.7.2008 in the last interlocutory application, issued by the Deputy Secretary, Vigilance Department to all the Principal Secretaries/Secretaries of the Departments, by which a request has been made to take action for blacklisting the petitioner and informing the Vigilance Department regarding the same.
Considering the fact that all the three writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners against the order of blacklisting passed by the respondent authorities, the prayer for amendment is allowed.
I.A. Nos. 6797/2009, 6798/2009 and 6768/2009 are, accordingly, disposed of.
The petitioner has filed the writ petitions against different impugned orders of blacklisting passed by the Tourism, Department, Bihar School Examination Board and the Building Construction Department as also the letters issued by the Vigilance Department requesting the different authorities to take a decision of blacklisting.
The only submission of learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage is that all the orders of blacklisting have -3- been passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and behind his back, which is a complete violation of the principle of natural justice.
In support of his aforesaid stand, he relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. .vs. State of West Bengal and another: A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 266 in which the three Judges Bench has held in paragraph No.20 as follows:
"20. Blacklisting has the effect of preventing a person from the privilege and advantage of entering into lawful relationship with the Government for purposes of gains. The fact that a disability is created by the order of blacklisting indicates that the relevant authority is to have an objective satisfaction. Fundamentals of fair play require that the person concerned should be given an opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the blacklist."-4-
He further relies upon another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Raghunath Thakur.vs. State of Bihar and others.: (1989) 1 SCC 229, in paragraph No.4 of which the proposition has been reiterated.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents the fact that no notice was issued to the petitioner and he was not heard before different orders of blacklisting had been passed, is not denied.
Learned counsel for the Vigilance Department, however, sought to support the orders by stating that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, as pursuant to the investigation made by the Vigilance Department prima facie case was found against the petitioner and an F.I.R. has also been lodged with respect to which criminal proceedings are still pending.
In my view since the valuable fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution are involved, the issue of no prejudice cannot be raised particularly in view of the clear mandate in this regard as laid down in Erusian Equipment's case (supra) and a catena of decisions of the Apex Court as also of this Court. Blacklisting is a serious -5- matter bringing about civil consequences affecting the right to carry on any occupation, trade or profession and such an order cannot be passed lightly on the basis of any request made by the Department of the Government, being the Vigilance Department to the other Departments.
In the above circumstances, the impugned orders dated 31.12.2007, 16.7.2008 and 4.6.2008 in the three writ petitions cannot stand and they are, accordingly, quashed.
So far as the challenge to the letters issued by the Deputy Secretary, Vigilance Department to the Principal Secretaries/Secretaries of different Departments is concerned, the same ought to have been treated as a mere request made by the said Department and any order of blacklisting could have been passed only after giving due opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Hence, there is no need to quash the said letters.
The writ applications are, accordingly, allowed. It shall, however, be open to the respondent authorities to proceed afresh in the matter after giving opportunity to the petitioner to be heard.
( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Vps.