M/S Laxmi Enterprises Vs N.M.D.C. Limited

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:1311

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 2169 of 2024

¶6

M/s Laxmi Enterprises Through Its Partner Mr. Prakash Soni S/o Shri Laxminarayan Soni Aged About 36 Years R/o Professor Colony, Sector- 03, Raipur (Cg) ... Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

1. N.M.D.C. Limited, Iron And Steel Plant, Through General Manager ( Materials Management And Marketing) Post Nagarnar, District Bastar (Cg)

¶9

1. Oil And Gas Plant Engineers India Pvt. Limited, Through Side In Charge House No. 164 Pratap Ganjpara Pratapdev Ward Near Maharani Hospital Jagdalpur, District Bastar (Cg)

¶10

1. M/s. Mecon Limited, Through Chief General Manager, Nisp, Nagarnar, District Bastar (C.G)

¶11

1. Executive Director, Nsl, Nagarnar, District- Bastar (Cg)

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner	: Ms. Pratibha Sahu, Advocate.
For Respondents No 1 and 4	: Mrs. Naushina Afrin Ali, Advocate.
For respondent No.2	: Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi,Advocate.

¶14

(Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas)

Order on Board

08/01/2025

2

The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the illegal and arbitrary action of the respondent authorities whereby the respondent authorities have terminated the work allotment order of the petitioner without providing them sufÏcient opportunity of hearing and have further taken step ahead by blacklisting the present petitioner’s firm for an indefinite period of time without serving them any notice.

¶19

The petitioner is a registered partnership firm under the Partnership Act and is doing the business of civil construction work in the name and style of M/s Laxmi Enterprises. The petitioner has approached the respondent No.2 Oil & Gas Plant Engineers India Pvt. Ltd., and respondent No.2 has given work order dated 6-9-2021 for Part civil work for 2 x 225 MT propane storage at M/s. NMDC, Nagarnar, Chhattisgarh. As per the work order, the petitioner has to perform the construction work after deploying their labour at site. The specification of the work has been described in Clause 2 of the work order and according to that, they are performing contract work.

¶20

During course of the work of the petitioner’s firm three FIRs have been registered at Police Station Nagarnar, District Bastar ie., on 17-2-2023 first FIR was lodged under Crime No 32 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC, on 9-3-2023 second FIR was lodged under Crime No. 41 of 2023 for the offence under Section 420, 467 and 471 of IPC and on 18-6-2023 third FIR was lodged under Crime No. 95 of 2023 for offence under Sections 465 and 471 of IPC. Since the integrity of the petitioner was in question, respondent No.2 has issued show cause notice on 11-32023 to the petitioner and the petitioner has not replied to show cause notice, thereafter respondent No.2 issued notice (Annexure

¶21

3

¶22

P/8) by which some of the companies are blacklisted including the petitioner.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the action of respondents No.1 and 2 is against the principle of natural justice as without affording opportunity of hearing their equipments have been seized by the respondent No.1. She would further submit that issuance of notice (Annexure P/8) is nothing but black-listing of the petitioner which is economic death and has civil consequences, therefore, opportunity of hearing is required to be given to them. She would further submit that seizure of equipment and material deployed by the petitioner at the work place is nothing but arbitrariness on the part of the respondents. Thus she would pray for allowing the petition.

¶24

Per contra, learned counsel fore respondent No.1 and 4 would submit that they have not black listed the petitioner and in fact it is for the respondent No.2 who was the principal employer of the petitioner has to initiate steps, therefore, they cannot be held responsible. So far as seizure of equipment is concerned, there is FIR against the petitioner, therefore, their action cannot be said to to suffer from arbitrariness warranting any interference by this Court and thus would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶25

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 supporting the stand taken by the learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 4 would submit that they have not blacklisted the petitioner but they have canceled the work order given to the petitioner. Therefore, he would submit that their action is justifiable because of the conduct of the petitioner and due to negligence on the part of the petitioner, valuable materials have been stolen causing adverse affect to the functioning of the respondent No.1. As such, he would

¶26

4

¶27

pray for dismissal of the petition.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents and considered the rival submissions.

¶29

From perusal of the record, it is quite vivid that no formal proceeding for blacklisting has been done either by the respondent No.1 or by respondent No.2, but the notice (Annexurte P/8) by which they have prohibited the petitioner and equipments have been seized has a civil consequence for which an opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the petitioner. Therefore, respondent No.1 is directed to release the equipment and machinery to the petitioner which have been installed at work place after preparing Panchnama of the material which will be done in presence of the ofÏcers of respondents No.1 and 2 and the petitioner. So far as black-listing is concerned, the issue is left open to be decided , if any such order is passed either by respondent No.1 or by respondent No.2. The petitioner is at liberty to take recourse as per the law, if he is aggrieved by any action taken by respondents No.1, 2 and 4.

¶30