Partly allowed

Mohamed Meera.M.a.M. v. The Chief Conservator of Forests and Field Director

Madras HC14 Nov 2024WP(MD)/17569/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the removal of the petitioner from the list of registered forest contractors and subsequent blacklisting due to work delays attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court found the punishment irrational and harsh given the impossibility of work during lockdowns. While acknowledging the blacklisting period has expired, the court set aside the order removing the petitio

What did the court decide?

The order removing the petitioner from the list of Forest Contractors is set aside. Respondents must not deny the petitioner's rights to participate in future tenders from the date of this order.

Mohamed Meera.M.a.M. Vs The Chief Conservator of… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.17569 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 14.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.17569 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.14668 and 22583 of 2023

¶7

M.A.M.Mohamed Meera ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Chief Conservator of Forests and Field Director, Srivilliputhur Megamalai Tiger Reserve, Madurai – 625 002.

¶10

2.The District Forest Officer, Madurai Division, 2, Race Course Road, Madurai – 625 002.

¶11

3.The Forest Ranger, Usilampatti Forest Range Office, Usilampatti, Madurai District. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order of the second respondent dated 06.08.2021 in

¶13

1/8

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P.(MD)No.17569 of 2023

¶16

Se.Mu.A.No.Va/7207/2019 confirmed by the proceedings of the first respondent dated 05.07.2023 in Proc.No.9630/2021/D2 and further proceedings of the first respondent dated 17.08.2023 in Proc.No.9630/2021/D2 and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to revive the registration of the petitioner as a registered contractor under the second respondent.

¶17

(Prayer amended vide Court Order dated 25.09.2023 in W.M.P.(MD)No.19324 of 2023 in W.P.(MD)No.17569 of 2023)

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Anandkumar

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Heard Mr.J.Anandkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶22

2. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the second

¶23

respondent dated 06.08.2021 confirmed by the proceedings of the first respondent dated 05.07.2023 and further proceedings of the first respondent

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

2/8

¶26

W.P.(MD)No.17569 of 2023

¶27

dated 17.08.2023 and to consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to revive the registration of the petitioner as a registered contractor under the second respondent.

¶28

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had been awarded contract for civil works during the year 2019-2020. In view of intervening COVID-19-19 period, the works could not be carried out within time line prescribed as there has been intermittent complete lock down. In view of the lock down, the contract workers of the petitioner was unable to attend the work and that there has been a delay. However, without considering this aspect, the second respondent herein had issued a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner as to why he should not be removed from the list of registered contractors. Without accepting the reasons submitted by the petitioner, the second respondent by order dated 06.08.2021 had removed the petitioner from the list of contractors and had also blacklisted the petitioner for a period of three years from again registering himself as a forest contractor. He would submit that against the said order, an appeal had been filed before the first respondent

¶29

and the first respondent by proceedings dated 05.07.2023 again without considering the reason for non-completion of work, confirmed the order of the

¶30

3/8

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.17569 of 2023

¶33

second respondent regarding blacklisting the petitioner for a period of three years. He would submit that three years had come to an end in the month of

¶34

August 2024 itself. However, in view of the removal of his name from the list of contractors, the petitioner is not able to participate in the future tenders. He would further submit that even though both the first and second respondents had accepted the reason for delay but had held that there were certain periods during which the lock down had been relaxed and the works could have been completed at the relevant point of time. He would submit that fear of being affected with COVID-19, most of the workers have refrained from attending the works and therefore, the petitioner was unable to get any other new works. Therefore, he would submit that the punishment imposed to remove the petitioner from the list of contractors is wholly unjustified.

¶35

4. Countering his arguments, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the complete lock down was not invoked for the entire period during COVID-19 pandemic. Relaxation have been given for carrying out the Government works and based upon the e-pass system, employees and workers were permitted to travel. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the petitioner had been an after thought and there is no reason for

¶36

4/8

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P.(MD)No.17569 of 2023

¶39

interfering with the order impugned. He would further submit that it is always open to the petitioner to make appropriate application seeking for registration after the period of blacklisting is over. In the present case, the period of three years is over and it is open to the petitioner to take out the application for re-registering him as a forest contractor.

¶40

5. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the records.

¶41

6. It is an admitted case that the delay had happened during the period

¶42

when humanity was at sufferance due to the COVID-19 pandemic and individuals fearing life had refused to come out. Even though the reasons had been accepted, the respondents have attempted to carve out an exception by saying during the relaxation period, the petitioner should have completed the work by engaging them in service. It is the case of the petitioner that workers feared to come out.

¶43

5/8

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.P.(MD)No.17569 of 2023

¶46

7. In view of COVID-19, I am of the view that the punishment imposed

¶47

upon the petitioner by removing him from the list of contractors is highly irrational. Since the period of blacklisting is already over, what remains to be answered is with regard to the removal of the petitioner from the list of contractors. Since I have already found that the punishment has been irrational and harsh, the order imposing punishment directing removal of the petitioner from the list of contractors alone is set aside, as he had already suffered the punishment of black listing.

¶48

8. In such view of the matter, the Writ Petition is partly allowed and the punishment imposed on the petitioner viz., the removal from the list of Forest Contractors alone is set aside. The respondents shall not deny the rights of the petitioner to participate in the future tenders from the date of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶49

14.11.2024

¶50

NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no Nsr

¶51

6/8

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

W.P.(MD)No.17569 of 2023

¶54

Note: Issue Order Copy on 20.11.2024. To:

¶55

1.The Chief Conservator of Forests and Field Director, Srivilliputhur Megamalai Tiger Reserve, Madurai – 625 002.

¶56

2.The District Forest Officer, Madurai Division,

¶57

2, Race Course Road,

¶58

Madurai – 625 002.

¶59

3.The Forest Ranger, Usilampatti Forest Range Office, Usilampatti, Madurai District.

¶60

7/8

¶61

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶62

W.P.(MD)No.17569 of 2023

¶63

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶64

Nsr

¶65

W.P.(MD)No.17569 of 2023

¶66

14.11.2024

¶67

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶68

8/8

Mohamed Meera.M.a.M. v. The Chief Conservator of Forests and Field Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohamed Meera.M.a.M. v. The Chief Conservator of Forests and Field Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ahamed Irfan Vs The Commissioner of Customs

M/S.Sri Ramajeyam Spintex Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity

T.Suryanarayana Reddy Vs the Principal Secretary

Rasammal, Vs the Assistant Engineer

Cinnaponnu Vs the Executive Engineer

Thirukumar, Vs the Inspector General of