CHAUHAN ROAD LINES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners to get an order quashing the impugned order dated 28th December, 2010 and other consequential reliefs in connection thereto.

(2.) From the order impugned it appears to us that it has been passed in compliance of the order dated 29th October, 2010 passed in the earlier occasion by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58370 of 2010 (Chauhan Roadlines and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.). Therefore, let us go through the order of the Division Bench to understand the scope and ambit of the order impugned herein. From the order of the Division Bench we find the Court was pleased to hold that firstly no procedure had been contemplated to conduct any enquiry and secondly, when blacklisting of a contractor is punitive in nature causing stigma being higher in degree than mere cancellation of contract, a proper enquiry is required to be made. Blacklisting, in other words, is more stringent in nature in which even the question of redemption does not arise. In the case of mere cancellation of licence, parties may be at liberty to avail alternative remedies available to them under the terms and conditions of the contract or under the law, as the case may be. Therefore, while allowing such writ petition, the Division Bench was pleased to direct the Respondents to issue show cause notice/s to the Petitioners regarding charges of malpractices within two weeks from the date of the judgment made ready and the Petitioners were directed to submit their explanations within two weeks thereafter. The enquiry was directed to be conducted by taking into account the relevant documentary evidences, if any, produced by either side before the enquiry officer and was to be completed within the specified time as given therein.

(3.) Now, coming back to the order impugned, which has been passed following such direction, we find that two vehicles being Tank Truck (in short called as "TT") bearing registration Nos. UP80 BJ 9458 and UP78 AN 2061, which were engaged in transportation of petroleum products, were found to be involved in malpractices, for which show cause notices were issued to the Petitioners, reply whereof had also been submitted.