ANDHRA CIVIL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Vs. GOVT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1.These petitions coming on for hearing on Thursday the 8th, Friday the 16th, Wednesday the 21st days of February, 1990. Thrusday the 8th day and Friday the 9th day of March 1990 upon perusing the petitions and the respective affidavits filed in support thereof the order of this Court dated 7-1-88, 9-2-88, 14-4-88 and made in W. P. Nos. 13234/87, 916 and 4174 of 1988 and the respective counter-affidavits and common reply affidavit filed thereon and the records relating to the order in 1. C2/RC/19/86 dated 30-11-86 on the file of the 2nd respondent 2. ED/(C)/DB/F.59-1/88 dated 30-11-88 on the file of the 2nd respondent.

(2.) E(C) 59/i)88EE/P1 dated 5-2-88 on the file of the second respondent respectively comprised in return of the 1st and 2nd respondents in W.P. No. 13234/87, and the 1st respondent in W.P. Nos. 916 and 4174/88 to the writs made by the High Court and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. S. Govindaswaminathan for M/s. N. S. Sivam, G. Anbumani and R. Ganesan Advocate for the petitioner in all the petitions and of Mr. P. Narasimhan Senior Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the 1st respondent in all the petitions and of Mr. B. Sriramulu Special Public Prosecutor on bealf of' the 2nd respondent in W.P. No. 13234/87 and of Mr. T. S. Subramaniam for Mr. S. Jayakumar Advocate for the 3rd respondent in W. P. No. 13234/87 and of Mr. R. Krishnamurthy for M. Venkatachalapathy Advocate for the 4th respondent in W. P. No. 13234/87 and for the second respondent in W.P. Nos. 916 and 4174 of 1988 and having stood over for consideration till this day the Court made the following order :Writ petition No. 13234 of 1987 is filed by the petitioner company praying for an issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the respondents culminated in the report of the second respondent therein dated 30-11-1986 and quash the observation, "while no action is recommended against A-17 firm, the Ministry of Shipping may be advised to recommend banning of business dealings with the firm by the Ports" * made in the said report. 2. Writ Petition No. 916 of 1988 is filed by the petitioner company praying for an issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the respondents culminated in Letter ED(C)/DB/F.59-1/88 dated 30-1-1988 issued by the second respondent therein and quash the same and direct the respondents issue Work Order to the petitioner company for Balance Dredging of Approach Channel between 525 to 1950 metres minus 10-98 metres in the Tuticorin Port Trust.

(3.) THE first respondent Ministry of Surface Transport has filed a counter-affidavit in each of W.M.Ps. It is claimed in the counter that on the basis of the investigation carried out by the Madras Port Trust. It had noticed various irregularities amounting to great loss to the Madras Port Trust, which at the same time enabled the petitioner-company the chance of unjust enrichment, the facts leading to the investigation of the C.B.I. are narrated in the counter-affidavit. It is also claimed in the counter-affidavit that on the basis of charges the C.B.I. had recommended to the Government to consider the advisability for banning to future dealings with the petitioner's-company, that no instructions have been issued by the Government to the Madras Port Trust and Tuticorin Port Trust forbidding them to issue tender forms to any company including the petitioner-company. It is further submitted by the first respondent that the report of the C.B.I. is a confidential document, that the same cannot be furnished to the petitioner-company, and that the prayer in this regard is quite unsustainable. It is clearly stated in paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit that invoking the principles of natural justice, the petitioner-company is trying to create sympathy from the Court, Knowing very well that the Government would not straightway implement the recommendation of the C.B.I., that banning business dealings with the petitioner-company would require compliance with the principles of natural justice and would have to be covered by the instructions of the Government of India regarding the banning of business dealings as held by Supreme Court in M/s. Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal 1975 AIR(SC) 266, 1975 (1) SCC 70, 1975 (2) SCR 674, 1974 UJ 737, 1975 (1) ALR 22). It is further claimed in the counter-affidavit that any action leading to banning of the business dealings with any firm in question would require sufficient opportunity to be given to the concerned company and also after proper enquiry if it is found to be guilty and the punishment to be imposed would depend on the gravity of the charges, then only any action could be taken against the company, that the petitioner-company at present has not been served with show cause notice, that an action has been taken against the petitioner-company by the Government for banning business dealings with the petitioner-company and that the prayer of the petitioner-company to restrain the respondents from taking into consideration the advice of the C.B.I. is not entitled to be considered. It is further submitted in the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent that at this juncture the petitioner-company cannot revoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.