SHOGHI COMMUNICATIONS LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the second round of litigation concerning the blacklisting of the Petitioner by an order dated 9th July 2005 issued by the Directorate General of Military Intelligence ("DGMI?) and the consequential order dated 19th September 2005 issued by the Ministry of Defence ("MOD?) stating that on advice from the National Security Council Secretariat "it would be desirable to avoid any contact with M/s Shogi Communications Ltd ("SCL?)" and Mr. Harish Gupta.

(2.) Information was received from the Central Bureau of Investigation ("CBI?) on 11th May 2005 about Mr. Harish Gupta, Director (R&D) of the Petitioner SCL having been chargesheeted in CBI case No. RC 9(S)/96-DLI for offences under Section 420 read with Section 511 IPC and Section 469 and 471 IPC in 1996. The said communication pointed out that the allegation against Mr. Harish Gupta was that "he forged/used an End User Certificate purported to have been issued by Communication Directorate of NSG for importing two systems T-1285 Customs Act including Key Generation Programme OPG-2002 and crypts fill Device CFD-2001 during the year 1995-96. The offence came to light when the said End User Certificate was referred back by authorities to NSG for some changes." This led to an order dated 4th July 2005 being issued by the office of the IFA (Army/M) addressed to the DGMI that SCL and its two sister companies, Secure Telecom Pvt. Ltd. (STPL) and Sidhi Tech Services Ltd. (STSL) should be deleted from the vendor list and all transactions with the three companies should be stopped forthwith.

(3.) The Petitioner challenged the validity of the CBI?s communication dated 11th May 2005, the order dated 4th July 2005 of the IFA, the order dated 9th July 2005 of the DGMI and the consequential order dated 19th September 2005 of the MOD blacklisting the Petitioner, by filing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1815 of 2007 in this Court. In that writ petition the principal grounds of challenge were that the orders were passed without issuing any notice to the Petitioner and, therefore, were violative of principles of natural justice and that the blacklisting was for an indefinite period.