SONU ELECTRICALS Vs. AMRAVATI MUNICIPAL CORPN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

(2.) SHRI. N. W. Sambre, learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is a Proprietor of Sonu Electrical and an "a" Class Electrical contractor, having Licence No. 9324. Tender was floated by Maharashtra state Road Development Corporation Limited for the purpose of electrical works to be carried out tinder I. R. D. P. at Amravati. It is submitted that vide letter dated 2-1-2003"of the Municipal Corporation, Amravati petitioner was informed regarding the awarding of contract to him and was asked to report to the office within seven days from the receipt of this letter with various samples of sodium and mercury fittings. Shri. Sambre, learned counsel states that the petitioner being a successful bidder, work order dated 30-1-2002 came to be issued in his favour for one year which expired on 28-2-2003. Shri, Sambre, learned counsel contended that Municipal Council, Amravati issued show cause notice dated 9-5-2003, whereby the petitioner was informed that he failed to honour and complete the work orders granted to him and was called upon to show cause, as to why, his security deposit should not be forfeited and he be not debarred for three years, within seven days from the date of the letter/notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner, no doubt, submitted his reply to the said show cause notice dated 3-6-2003, however, contended that the Corporation before passing the impugned order dated 3-10-2003, did not give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order is bad-in-law. It is contended that by the impugned order the security deposit of the petitioner is forfeited and the petitioner was debarred from undertaking work within the jurisdiction of Amravati Corporation, for a period of three years. The learned counsel contended that this action of the respondent virtually prohibits the petitioner from dealing with the Corporation for a period of three years, which results in civil consequences as well as it would amount to stigma, because of the fact of blacklisting the petitioner without giving him opportunity of being heard. It is, therefore, prayed that impugned order dated 3-10-2003 is violative of principles of natural justice and same should be quashed and set aside. In order to substantiate the contentions, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar and others,#1.

(3.) SHRI. M. K. Pathan, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, states that the Corporation issued show cause notice dated 9-5-2003 to ihe petitioner, whereby the petitioner was called upon to show cause, as to why, his security deposit should not be seized and he should not be debarred for three years, in view of the facts mentioned in the show cause notice and, therefore, this is not the case where the opportunity was not given to the petitioner by the Corporation. It is contended that the petitioner,after receipt of the above referred show cause notice, submitted his detailed reply, which was considered by the Corporation and it is after due consideration the decision is taken by the Corporation, that the reasons given in the reply filed by the petitioner are inadequate and, therefore, finally decided to forfeit the security deposit and debarred the petitioner accordingly. The learned counsel for the respondent states that the action of the respondent, in the circumstances, is not violative of principles of natural justice and, therefore, impugned order is sustainable-in-law.