Jharkhand High Court
Adivasi Krishak Mahila Kalyan Parishad ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 January, 2022
Author: Shree Chandrashekhar
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P. (C) No. 3199 of 2016
Adivasi Krishak Mahila Kalyan Parishad Mandar, Ranchi through
its Secretary Afzal Hussain, s/o-Maniruddin Ansari, r/o-Firdaus
Nagar, PO and PS Mandar, District-Ranchi. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, PO and PS Chatra, District-
Chatra.
3. Labour Superintendent, Chatra, PO and PS Chatra, District-
Chatra. ... Respondents
-------
(Through V.C) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate For the State : Mr. Navneet, AC to SC-V
-------
Order No. 16/Dated: 07th January 2022 This is an assigned matter by an order dated 23rd November 2017 passed on the administrative side by Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, High Court of Jharkhand.
2. The order of blacklisting issued under the signature of the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra vide memorandum dated 30th March 2016 is under challenge in this writ petition.
3. The petitioner is a registered NGO which was issued certificate of registration on 20th September 2001.
4. Under a scheme to cease migration of labors from the State of Jharkhand and illegal migration of interstate labor as well as child labors, the Labor Commissioner issued certain directions to all the Deputy Commissioners of the State of Jharkhand as contained in letter dated 13th August 2014. The petitioner-NGO was issued a work order on 21 st October 2014 for survey and identification of interstate migrant labors. A second work order was issued to the petitioner-NGO on 12 th November 2014 for survey of child labor within the district of Chatra. It is the case of the petitioner-NGO that on completion of the exercise as indicated in the work orders dated 21st October 2014 and 12th November 2014, 2 W.P.(C) No. 3199 of 2016 it was made payments of Rs. 4.90 lacs and Rs. 3.23 lacs on 25th March 2015. Notwithstanding that, the order contained in memorandum dated 30th March 2016 was issued by which the petitioner-NGO has been blacklisted for an indefinite period.
5. Mr. Shresth Gautam, the learned counsel for the petitioner-NGO, has questioned legality of the order of blacklisting dated 30th March 2016 on the ground of flagrant violation of the rules of natural justice.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner-NGO relies on the judgments in "Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of W.B." (1975) 1 SCC 70, "Gorkha Security Services v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi)" (2014) 9 SCC 105 and "Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Western Telecom Project BSNL" (2014) 14 SCC 731 to fortify his contentions that the order of the blacklisting dated 30 th March 2016 could not have been issued without a show-cause notice and affording an opportunity to the petitioner-NGO to put up its case before the respondent-authority.
7. Mr. Navneet, the learned AC to SC-V, refers to the letter dated 13th August 2014 which has been placed on record through supplementary counter-affidavit dated 17th July 2018 to submit that the petitioner-NGO committed serious irregularities in execution of the work orders issued vide letters dated 21 st October 2014 and 12th November 2014. On 09th October 2015, a report was published in the daily newspaper Dainik Jagran that without conducting survey the petitioner-NGO prepared a report which is established from the fact that though there was no line-hotel at Rimi, still, there is reference of a line-hotel at Rimi in the survey conducted by the petitioner-NGO. The learned counsel submits that a complaint was lodged by one Sanjay Kumar in this regard with the competent authority pursuant thereof the Labor Superintendent, Chatra was directed to conduct an inquiry in the matter. A report dated 17th December 2015 was submitted by the Labor Superintendent, Chatra in which it was reported that survey of the interstate migrant labors was not conducted under the supervision of Labor Enforcement Officers and Panchayat Sewaks and thereby the directions issued vide para-2 of the letter dated 3 W.P.(C) No. 3199 of 2016 13th August 2014, and in the letters dated 21 st October 2014 and 12th November 2014 were violated. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner-NGO prepared forge documents and without conducting any survey prepared a report and secured payment of Rs. 8.30 lacs illegally from the state exchequer and that is the reason the order of blacklisting dated 30 th March 2016 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra.
8. In the counter-affidavit, the respondent-State has stated thus:
"12. That with regard to the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph-6 to 11, in the instant writ petition under reply, it is humbly stated and submitted that the petitioner's NGO was entrusted with the work of conducting survey of migrated labour and child labour in all the blocks of Chatra District under the supervision of Labour Enforcement Officer and Panchayat Sewak. The petitioner submitted false bill without verification by the Labour Enforcement Officer and Panchayat Sewak and withdrawn Rs.8,30,000/-."
9. A perusal of the inquiry report dated 17 th December 2015 reveals that statement of Badho Sao a resident of Lawalong was recorded by the Labor Superintendent who allegedly made a statement before him that there was no line-hotel at Rimi. Admittedly before an inquiry was conducted in the matter and even after the inquiry report dated 17th December 2015 was submitted by the Labor Superintendent, Chatra, no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner-NGO. The inquiry report and the stand taken by the respondents indicate that the petitioner-NGO is alleged to have committed serious irregularity in execution of the work issued vide orders dated 21 st October 2014 and 12th November 2014. With such serious allegations alleged to the petitioner-NGO it was more so necessary for the respondent- authority to afford an opportunity to the petitioner-NGO to defend itself and put up its case before the order of blacklisting dated 30th March 2016 was issued. In the report dated 17 th December 2015, there is no reference of statement of any other person of the villages in which survey was conducted by the petitioner-NGO - statement of Badho Sao is also not produced alongwith the inquiry report dated 17th December 2015.
10. Even further, directions issued under paragraph-2 of 4 W.P.(C) No. 3199 of 2016 letter dated 13th August 2014 which according to the respondent- authority the petitioner-NGO has not complied with is infact a direction issued by the Labor Commissioner to all the Deputy Commissioners and the real import of the said paragraph no. 2 appears to be that the Deputy Commissioners were entrusted to supervise the survey of interstate migrant and child labors. The letter dated 13th August 2014 nowhere refers to any direction to the executing NGO. In the aforesaid fact-situation, this Court is of the opinion that a show-cause notice was imperative in the matter and the petitioner-NGO was entitled to have a copy of the inquiry report dated 17th December 2015 so as to enable it to make an effective defence before the respondent-authority.
11. Way back in 1975, in "Erusian Equipment", the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that fundamentals of fair play require that the person sought to be put under blacklist should be given an opportunity to represent his case before an order of blacklisting is passed against him. In "Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar"
(1989) 1 SCC 229 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that even where there was no requirement under the rules to put a person on notice before blacklisting the principles of natural justice require that a show-cause notice is issued to such person.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner-NGO has relied on "Gorkha Security Services" in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :
"16. It is a common case of the parties that the blacklisting has to be preceded by a show-cause notice. Law in this regard is firmly grounded and does not even demand much amplification. The necessity of compliance with the principles of natural justice by giving the opportunity to the person against whom action of blacklisting is sought to be taken has a valid and solid rationale behind it. With blacklisting, many civil and/or evil consequences follow. It is described as "civil death" of a person who is foisted with the order of blacklisting. Such an order is stigmatic in nature and debars such a person from participating in government tenders which means precluding him from the award of government contracts."
13. It is also no longer in the realm of doubt that an order of blacklisting cannot be for an indefinite period. The petitioner-NGO vide the order of blacklisting dated 30 th March 2016 has been put under blacklist for an indefinite period. The said order in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Kulja 5 W.P.(C) No. 3199 of 2016 Industries Ltd." cannot be countenanced in law.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the opinion that the order of blacklisting dated 30 th March 2016 cannot be supported in law as being issued in breach of the rules of natural justice and therefore the same is quashed.
15. W.P.(C) No. 3199 of 2016 is allowed, in the aforesaid terms.
16. I.A. No. 947 of 2019 stands disposed of.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) RKM/Tanuj