STATE OF ORISSA Vs. BALRAM SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted in both the Special Leave Petitions.

(2.) The controversy in the two appeals lies within a very narrow compass. Writ Petition No. 3445 of 2004 was filed by the respondent before the Orissa High Court, inter alia, with a prayer that his license as a Super Class Contractor should not be cancelled by the respondent No.2 i.e. Chairman of the Committee of Chief Engineers and Engineers-in-Chief, Orissa. The Writ Petition was filed under the apprehension that his license was likely to be cancelled. The High Court disposed of the Writ Petition by order dated 13.5.2004 after hearing learned counsel for the writ petitioner and learned Government Advocate with a direction that without issuing show cause notice to the writ petitioner and without giving him a fair opportunity of hearing, his license as Super Class Contractor shall not be cancelled and his security deposit shall not be forfeited.

(3.) Several miscellaneous cases were thereafter filed by the respondents. By order dated 7.10.2005 the Chairman of the aforesaid Committee directed cancellation of respondents license under Rule 11 (a) of P.W.D. Contractors Registration Rules, 1967 (in short the Rules). This was questioned by the respondent by filing a writ petition taking the stand that the order was passed by the Chief Engineer, but no notice was issued prior to passing of the order. The High Court by order dated 9.2.2007 allowed the Writ Petition, quashing several orders passed on the ground that before the cancellation was done, no notice was given. Reference was made by the present appellants to notice purportedly issued on 21.2.2004. It was stated that before the order was passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 3445/2004, a show cause notice had already been issued. The respondent filed a rejoinder affidavit taking the stand that after the order was passed on 13.5.2004 in the earlier writ petition, no notice was issued. The High Court noticed that before cancellation of the license no notice had been issued and the previous writ petition was disposed of with a specific direction that without notice and grant of fair opportunity of hearing license shall not be cancelled and the security shall not be forfeited. Undisputedly, after the date of the High Courts order, no notice was issued. Thereafter, several miscellaneous cases were filed for extension of time. An application was also filed for modification of order passed on 9.2.2007 by the High Court. But the High Court by order dated 25.6.2008 rejected the same and further directed the present appellants to implement the order dated 9.2.2007.