Partly allowed

Rajharshee Majoor Sakhari Sanstha and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Bombay HC23 Jan 2024WP/739/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges a blacklisting order passed against the petitioners without an opportunity of hearing. The High Court set aside the impugned order to the extent of the present petitioners, holding that such drastic orders necessitate adherence to principles of natural justice. The Collector is directed to initiate fresh proceedings after providing a hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of blacklisting is set aside to the extent of the petitioners. The Collector is directed to initiate fresh action by following due procedure and affording a reasonable opportunity o

Rajharshee Majoor Sakhari Sanstha and Others… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:1885-DB

¶2

911wp739-24

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

911 WRIT PETITION NO. 739 OF 2024

¶5

RAJHARSHEE MAJOOR SAKHARI SANSTHA AND OTHERS

¶6

….Petitioner VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Mr. Jadhavar Shivprasad G., Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S. D. Ghayal, AGP for the Respondents-State

¶10

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE : 23rd January, 2024

¶11

ORDER :

¶12

The Petitioners have put forth prayer clauses (B) and (C),

¶13

which read as under :-

¶14

“B) By issuing writ of certiorari or any other appropriate

¶15

writ, order or direction in the like nature, the impugned order No. Jushi/DAO/Blacklist/KV/2020-4823, dated 16.12.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 place the name of petitioners on black list may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent of petitioners in the interest of justice pass necessary order.

¶16

C) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this writ petition the impugned order No. Jushi/DAO/Blacklist/

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

911wp739-24

¶19

KV/2020-4823, dated 16.12.2020 passed by respondent

¶20

No.2 place the name of petitioners on black list may kindly be stayed to the extent of petitioners in the interest of justice.”

¶21

The impugned order dated 16.12.2020, passed by Respondent No.2/Collector has already been quashed and set aside to the extent of the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.2901/2022 (Sanjay Narayanrao Tandale and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others) by this Court (Coram : Nitin W. Sambre and S. G. Chapalgaonkar, JJ.) vide the order dated 29/03/2023.

¶22

It is undisputed that the Petitioners are some of the 26 Societies, who have been blacklisted on the allegation that, they have failed to execute the work and have also committed misappropriation

¶23

of the public funds/properties. It is equally undisputed that the Petitioners were not issued with any notice for granting an opportunity of hearing before the impugned order, blacklisting the Petitioners, was passed.

¶24

The learned A.G.P. has tried to support the impugned order on the basis of the report of the Vigilance Committee, which finds a reference in the impugned order.

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

911wp739-24

¶27

The issue of blacklisting an entity and restraining it from executing public works under various schemes of the Government, is prejudicial to the interest of such entity. It has drastic consequences and such orders cannot be passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and anoher, AIR 1975 SC 266 , would apply to this case.

¶28

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is partly allowed . The impugned order is set aside to the extent of the present Petitioners. The Collector/Chairman of the ‘Jalyukta Shivar Samiti’ would be at liberty to initiate fresh action by following the due procedure laid down in law, and by affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners.

¶29

( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )

¶30

JPChavan

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Rajharshee Majoor Sakhari Sanstha and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajharshee Majoor Sakhari Sanstha and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shradha Nitesh Jaiswal and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Vyankat Narayan Bande Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bapurao Madhavrao Ugile Vs the State of Maharashtra through Irrigation Development Department and Others

Chandrasen Bhausaheb Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Rajapatel Shaikh Abdul Rafe Abdul Baki Rajapatel Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Urmila Sukhdev Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another