Allowed

B. Pothanna Yadav v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Dec 2018WP/34675/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an order in a writ petition challenging an order cancelling a catering contract and blacklisting the petitioner. The High Court held that the impugned order violated natural justice by failing to consider the petitioner's explanation and set it aside, directing authorities to follow the law in fresh proceedings. The bench consisted of the Hon'ble Justice A.V.Seshasai.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned proceedings Rc.No.N1/24/2018-A dated 15.09.2018 set aside; Respondents directed to issue notice afresh and take action in accordance with law; Miscellaneous petitions d

B. Pothanna Yadav Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶2

W.P.No.34675 of 2018

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

The proceedings bearing Rc.No.N1/24/2018-A, dated 15.09.2018 of the Joint Collector/Chairman, District Purchase Committee, TSWREIS, Nirmal District/the second respondent herein, cancelling the catering contract of the petitioner herein while keeping him in blacklist for three years, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶5

The material available on record shows that on 12.09.2018 the Principal, TSWREIS/Jr.College (Boys), Mudhole, Nirmal District/the fifth respondent herein issued Memo in Rc.No.N1/Hostel Maiantenance/05/18, calling upon the petitioner herein to submit his explanation regarding the incident which allegedly took place a day prior to the said memo. In response to the said memo, petitioner herein submitted an explanation on 12.09.2018 ie., on the same day. Now, by way of the impugned proceedings dated 15.09.2018, the Joint Collector, second respondent herein cancelled the contract.

¶6

3.. The complaint of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the third respondent passed the said order without giving any notice and opportunity to the petitioner. It is also his complaint that the respondents did not consider even the explanation offered by the petitioner herein on 12.09.2018.

¶7

A perusal of the impugned order does not reveal anything with regard to the explanation submitted by the petitioner herein and the third respondent did neither show the said explanation as a reference to the impugned proceedings nor considered the said explanation offered by the petitioner herein. This exercise undertaken by the third respondent is a

¶8

patent violation of the principles of natural justice. Since it is a settled proposition of law that any action which has civil consequences, must necessarily be preceded by a notice and opportunity to the persons likely to be effected by such action. In the instant case, the same is followed in breach. Therefore, on this ground alone the impugned order is liable to be setaside.

¶9

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned proceedings Rc.No.N1/24/2018-A, dated 15.09.2018 of the Joint Collector/Chairman, District Purchase Committee, TSWREIS, Nirmal District/the second respondent herein. However, it is open for the respondents herein to issue notice afresh and call for the explanation and take action strictly in accordance with law. Miscellaneous petitions, if any,

¶10

shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

Date:06.12.2018 b/o grk

¶12

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶13

W.P.No.34675 of 2018
Dated: 06.12.2018

¶14

grk

B. Pothanna Yadav v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Pothanna Yadav v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhel Mig Employees Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs The State of Telangana

Gudipati H.R.N.v.D.Santhosh, Hyderabad. Vs Aicte., Hyderabad, Ts.,and 4 Otrs.

Thooti Agaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Lakavath Mansingh, Vs The State of Telangana

Ramagiri Dhanalaxmi Vs The State of Telangana

Nimmagadda Vinod Babu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh