Disposed¶21

Aakanksha Enterprises, New Delhi v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC3 Jul 2024WP(C)/4586/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Odisha High Court 2024; writ petition disposed of; debarment order quashed for absence of show cause notice; remand/remit to opposite party no.3 for reconsideration with opportunity of hearing; bio-mining of legacy waste tender debarment for two years up to 31.03.2025; Annexure-5 order dated 26.07.2023; Aakanksha Enterprises v State of Odisha and others; W.P (C) 4586/2024; natural justice/procedural fairness; merits left unaddressed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned debarment order dated 26.07.2023 (Annexure-5) quashed; matter remitted to opposite party no.3 to reconsider and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after affording the petitioner opportunity of hearing; writ petition disposed of without going into merits. ¶21

Aakanksha Enterprises, New Delhi Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the debarment order dated 26.07.2023 passed by opposite party no.3 without issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner can be sustained in law or is liable to be quashed.

¶16

Court's answer

Without going into the merits of the case, the Court held that the debarment order dated 26.07.2023 passed by opposite party no.3 under Annexure-5 without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The Court held the debarment order liable to be quashed and quashed it.

¶20

Key takeaways

The Court remitted the matter back to opposite party no.3 to reconsider it and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court, Cuttack — W.P (C) No. 4586 of 2024, order dated 03.07.2024 (bench: Dr. Justice B.R. Sarangi and Justice G. Satapathy). Aakanksha Enterprises, New Delhi challenged a debarment order dated 26.07.2023 passed by opposite party no.3 under Annexure-5, which debarred the petitioner for two years up to 31.03.2025 from participating in any tender of Bio-mining of Legacy waste. Counsel for opposite party no.3 conceded that no show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner. The Court, expressly without going into the merits, held that a debarment order passed without any show cause notice cannot be sustained in law, quashed the order, and remitted the matter to opposite party no.3 to reconsider it and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law by affording the petitioner opportunity of hearing. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of. No statute or judicial precedent was cited in the order.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P (C) No. 4586 of 2024

¶3

Aakanksha Enterprises, New Delhi

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Ms. Pami Rath, Sr.Adv. along with Mr. A.K. Pattnaik, Adv.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State of Odisha and others

¶8

….. Opposite Parties Mr. P. Mohanty, Adv.[O.P.No.3]

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

¶11

ORDER

¶12

03.07.2024

¶13

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 06.

¶14

Heard Ms. Pami Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. A.K. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pronoy Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.3.

¶15

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 26.07.2023 passed by opposite party no.3 under Annexure-5, by which the petitioner has been debarred from participating in any tender of Bio-mining of Legacy waste for a period of two years up to 31.03.2025.

¶16

Ms. Pami Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. A.K. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order has been passed by the authority without issuing notice of show cause to the petitioner. Therefore, the order so passed by the authority cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

¶17

Mr. Pronoy Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.3 on instructions states that admittedly no notice of show cause was issued to the petitioner. Therefore, the order so

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

passed by the authority cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court is of the considered view that without going into the merits of the case, since the debarment order dated 26.07.2023 has been passed by the opposite party no.3 under Annexure-5 without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to opposite party no.3 to reconsider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶21

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶22

(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

¶23

Ashok

¶24

(G. SATAPATHY) JUDGE

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 04-Jul-2024 12:24:02

¶27

Page 2 of 2

Aakanksha Enterprises, New Delhi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aakanksha Enterprises, New Delhi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Principal Commissioner,Gst and Central Excise, Bbsr. Vs M/S Aarti Steels Ltd.

M/S Nanda Infra Construction Pvt. Ltd., Angul Vs State of Odisha

M/S. Nanda Infra Construction Pvt. Ltd. Angul Vs State of Odisha

Union of India Vs Pradip Kumar Dash

Jema Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

M/S.Sitaram Agrawal Vs State of Odisha