Jharkhand High Court
Haryana Seeds And Development ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 20 February, 2015
Equivalent citations: 2015 (4) AJR 9
Author: Shree Chandrashekhar
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 6966 of 2013
Haryana Seeds and Development Corporation Ltd. having its
office at Sector2, Panchkula P.O. & P.S. Panchkula District Haryana
through its authorized signatory Kehar Singh Dabra son of Sri
Attar Singh Panchkula, P.O. & P.S. Panchkula District Haryana
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Agriculture
Department having its office at Project Bhawan P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa
District Ranchi
2. Director, Agriculture Department having its office at Project
Bhawan P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa District Ranchi... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Prakash, J.C. to G.A.
Order No. 05 Dated: 20.02.2015
Seeking quashing of order contained in memo dated
02.03.2012whereby the petitionerCorporation has been blacklisted, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitionerCorporation is a Government Company wholly owned by the State of Haryana. Pursuant to letter dated 06.05.2010 of the Director, Agriculture, Expressions of Interest were invited for submission, for which last date was 12.05.2010. The petitionerCorporation vide letter dated 10.05.2010 furnished details of seeds which it was capable of supplying through its coproducer. The petitionerCorporation was given work order for supply of Maize seed for different districts. It was also given supply order for "Kulthi" seed of "Madhu" variety for Palamu district vide work order dated 18.08.2010. It is stated that the 2 petitionerCorporation was also given work orders for supply of various quantity of seeds of different variety of Maize, Moong, Potato, Toria, Niger, KulthiMadhu, Paddy, Arhar etc. From the seeds supplied by the petitionerCorporation, samples were taken and sent for analysis and after inspection and verification of the quality of seeds, partpayment was also made to the petitionerCorporation. On 29.11.2011, a showcause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging that in Palamu district, growth of Kulthi seeds supplied by the petitionerCorporation was not satisfactory. A 3Man Committee was constituted which also found that growth of Kulthi plant was negligible and thus, sample of Kulthi seed was sent for DNA test which was done at NBPGR, Pusa, New Delhi. The test report indicated that there was considerable admixture in the seed lot of the variety provided. The petitionerCorporation submitted its reply on 24.02.2012 however, vide order dated 02.03.2012, the petitionerCorporation was blacklisted.
3. A counteraffidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 stating that on complaints made by the farmers that the Vanaspati growth of plants of Kulthi of Madhu variety, an information was given by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu to the Director, Agriculture vide letter dated 14.04.2011 recommending that the supplier of the seed may be put in the blacklist category. Accordingly, the sample of KuthiMadhu variety was sent to the National Bureau of Plant Genetics Resources, New Delhi for DNA test. The test report revealed that there was considerable admixture in the seed lot of the variety provided. It was further observed that the released variety VLG 10 is distinct for the profile from the test variety "Madhu". Consequently, a showcause notice dated 29.11.2011 was issued to the petitionerCorporation for taking appropriate action for its fraudulent act. After considering the reply of the 3 petitionerCorporation, order dated 02.03.2012 was passed, blacklisting the petitionerCorporation and withholding payment of balance amount and also for initiating action for recovery of the payment made to it.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitionerCorporation submits that without affording an opportunity of hearing to challenge the testreport or to explain the findings in the test report and without supplying a copy of th test report, the impugned order dated 02.03.2012 has been passed which is liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that though, the petitionerCorporation supplied different variety of seeds in different districts of the State of Jharkhand however, no complaint whatsoever was received in respect of the quality of the seeds supplied by the petitionerCorporation. Still, only on the basis of complaint made by some farmers, punitive action has been taken by the respondents behind the back of the petitionerCorporation, which is in gross violation of the rules of principles of natural justice and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
6. As against the above, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that it is a matter of record that the vegetable growth of the KulthiMadhu seeds supplied by the petitionerCorporation was negligible which resulted in financial loss to the poor farmers. The petitionerCorporation played fraud upon the poor farmers by supplying inferior quality of seeds and therefore, a decision has been taken to blacklist the petitionerCorporation and to recover the payment made to it. It is further submitted that the allegation that the impugned order dated 02.03.2012 has been passed behind the back of the petitioner is baseless in as much as, a showcause notice was 4 issued to the petitionerCorporation on 29.11.2011 in which the report of the DNA test was brought to the notice of the petitioner however, the petitioner could not give satisfactory explanation and therefore, the decision contained in letter dated 02.03.2012 has been taken.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
8. From the materials brought on record, I gather that it is not in dispute that the petitionerCorporation supplied different variety of seeds of Maize, Moong, Potato, Toria, Niger, KulthiMadhu, Paddy, Arhar etc. and there has been no complaint in respect of supply of seeds except, KulthiMadhu seed. The petitioner has asserted that after it supplied seeds of different variety, samples were taken and sent for testing and thereafter, order for payment was issued. The supply was made pursuant to work order dated 18.08.2010 whereas, a showcause notice has been issued to the petitionerCorporation more than one year thereafter, that is, on 29.11.2011. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau wrote letter on 14.04.2011 informing the Director, Agriculture the complaints received from the farmers however, it does not appear from the materials brought on record that copies of the complaints received from the farmers were supplied to the petitionerCorporation. It also appears that before sending the samples of KulthiMadhu seed for DNA test, the petitionerCorporation was neither informed nor the sample for DNA test was drawn in presence of the petitionerCorporation. Moreover, it is also not denied that except, showcause notice dated 29.11.2011, no opportunity was given to the petitionerCorporation for explaining the observation in the test report. A copy of the test report has also not been furnished to the petitionerCorporation, though a copy of the same has been filed along with the counteraffidavit. The petitionerCorporation is a 5 Government Corporation wholly owned by the Government of Haryana. The decision contained in letter dated 02.03.2012 blacklisting the petitionerCorporation would certainly entail serious consequences to a Government Corporation in its business dealings. I further find that the order of blacklisting is not limited for a period rather, it is for an indefinite period which cannot be sustained in law. The learned counsel for the petitionerCorporation has submitted that the possibility that the farmers themselves mixed some other variety of seed cannot be overruled. Considering these facts, I am of the opinion that order dated 02.03.2012 has been passed in gross breach of rules of principles of natural justice and therefore, the matter is required to be heard by the respondent no. 2 afresh.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 02.03.2012 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent no. 2Director, Agriculture for taking a fresh decision after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitionerCorporation.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Manish/N.A.F.R.