Allowed

Shilpi Sansthan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 May 2024CW/6145/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench allowed connected writ petitions challenging an order blacklisting the petitioner-firm of Barmer. The court set aside the order dated 28.12.2023 and quashed the previous order dated 08.07.2022, resting the decision on the violation of natural justice due to lack of hearing.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions are allowed in the same terms. The order dated 28.12.2023 is quashed and set aside. Liberty granted to respondents to pass a fresh order after providing a proper opportunity of hear

Shilpi Sansthan Vs State of Rajasthan — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:21613]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6145/2024

¶4

Shilpi Sansthan, Through Its President Prakash Sharma S/o Shri Panna Lal Sharma Aged About 74 Years, Resident Of 294/4, Khagal Mohalla, Barmer (Rajasthan).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director Cum Special Secretary, Directorate, Local Self Department, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶8

The District Collector, Barmer (Rajasthan). 3. Municipal Council, Barmer (Rajasthan) Through Its Commissioner.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6029/2024

¶12

Shilpi Sansthan, Barmer Through Its President Prakash Sharma S/o Panna Lal Sharma, Aged About 74 Years, Resident Of 294/4, Khagal Mohalla, Barmer (Rajasthan).

¶13

----Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director Cum Special Secretary, Directorate, Local Self Department, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶16

1. The District Collector, Barmer (Rajasthan). 3. Municipal Council Barmer (Rajasthan), Through Its Commissioner.

¶17

		----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Pushkar Tamini
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Rajesh Parihar

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶19

Order

¶20

14/05/2024

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners has shown the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11302/2022 (Kisan Gramin Vikas Samiti Vs. State

(2 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:21613]

[CW-6145/2024]

of Rajasthan & Ors.), decided on 04.02.2023. The order reads as

¶26

follows:-

¶27

“This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-

¶28

“It is, therefore humbly prayed that your Lordship may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 8.07.2022 (Annexure-9) passed by the respondent NO.2 may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.

¶29

Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems expedient in the facts and circumstances of the caes may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

¶30

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.07.2022 passed by the respondents whereby the petitioner-firm has been blacklisted without providing opportunity of hearing and penalty of Rs.1 lac has also been imposed upon it. Counsel further submits that it is a case of nonapplication of mind and action of the respondents is also in violation of the principles of natural justice as the impugned order has been passed without hearing the petitioner.

¶31

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter Gorkha Security Services Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. reported in 2014 (9) SCC 105 in para Nos.31 & 33 has held as under:-

¶32

31. When it comes to the action of blacklisting which is termed as 'Civil Death' it would be difficult to accept the proposition that without even putting the notice to such a contemplated action and giving him a chance to show cause as to why such an action be not taken, final order can be passed blacklisting such a person only on the premise that this is one

(3 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:21613]

[CW-6145/2024]

of the actions so stated in the provisions of NIT. The "Prejudice" Argument

¶37

33. When we apply the ratio of the aforesaid judgment to the facts of the present case, it become difficult to accept the argument of the learned ASG. In the first instance, we may point out that no such case was set up by the Respondents that by omitting to state the proposed action of blacklisting, the Appellant in the show cause notice has not caused any prejudice to the Appellant. Moreover, had the action of black listing being specifically proposed in the show cause notice, the Appellant could have mentioned as to why such extreme penalty is not justified. It could have come out with extenuating circumstances defending such an action even if the defaults were there and the Department was not satisfied with the explanation qua the defaults. It could have even pleaded with the Department not to blacklist the Appellant or do it for a lesser period in case the Department still wanted to black list the Appellant. Therefore, it is not at all acceptable that non mentioning of proposed blacklisting in the show cause notice has not caused any prejudice to the Appellant. This apart, the extreme nature of such a harsh penalty like blacklisting with severe consequences, would itself amount to causing prejudice to the Appellant.

¶38

The respondent(s) have not submitted any document on record to show that the petitioner was given opportunity of hearing prior to passing of the order dated 08.07.2022.

¶39

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:21613]

[CW-6145/2024]

This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed for the reasons; firstly, the order dated 08.07.2022 (Annexure-9) has been passed by the respondents without providing any opportunity of hearing which in my considered view is in violation of principle of natural justice; secondly, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gorkha Security Services (supra).

¶44

I deem it proper to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶45

In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands allowed. The order dated 08.07.2022 is set aside. The respondents are at liberty to pass fresh order against the petitioner after providing proper opportunity of hearing.”

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is nothing distinguishable from the aforequoted order.

¶47

Learned Government Counsel opposed but is unable to point out any distinction from the aforequoted order, however, he submits that though individual notice was not given but general notice have been given.

¶48

In light of the aforequoted order, the present writ petitions are allowed in the same terms. The order dated 28.12.2023 is quashed and set aside with a clear liberty to the respondents to pass fresh order against the petitioner after providing proper opportunity of hearing.

¶49

All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶50

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶51

313-314-Arun P/-

Shilpi Sansthan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shilpi Sansthan v. State of Rajasthan

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

Harish Jasuja Vs State of Rajasthan

Harish Jasuja Vs State of Rajasthan

Kishanlal Vs Smt. Geeta Mundra

Pukh Raj Vs Pratap Ram

M/S Ashiyanabuildprop Private Limited Vs State of Rajasthan

Shilpi Sansthan Vs State of Rajasthan