A K AGENCIES Vs. NORTHERN COALFIELDS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 19.5.2017 (Annexure P/12) whereby the respondents "banned the business dealing" of the petitioner for a period of three years. In addition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.7.2013 (Annexure P/6) whereby the respondents decided to impose "LD charges" on the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner submits that it is an authorized dealer for Larsen and Tourbo Products and Sales. The petitioner was engaged in repairing of "DC Drive Panel" at Nigahi Project of respondent Organization at Singarouli. There are series of exchange of letters between the petitioner and respondents. Ultimately, by a show-cause notice dated 10.01.2017, the respondents called upon the petitioner to submit his statement of defense against the allegations made in the show-cause notice within twenty one days, failing which the petitioner will be suspended for six months with immediate effect. In turn, the petitioner submitted reply (Annexure P/11). Thereafter, the respondents passed the order dated 19.05.2017 (Annexure P/12) and inflicted the punishment of "banning of business dealing" for three years.

(3.) Shri Brain D'Silva, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the show-cause notice is ambiguous and does not reflect as to what was the flaw of the petitioner. The action proposed in the show-cause notice was different than the decision taken by the impugned order. He submits that petitioner's appeal could not fetch any result and in the meantime, petitioner is suffering adverse impact of "banning of business order" (Annexure P/12). He further submits that as per Committee report (Annexure RJ-2), the action of respondents is wholly impermissible and bad in law. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the impugned order dated 24.07.2013 is also bad in law because the said order was passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. In view of the Expert's Committee Report filed with the rejoinder, the order dated 24.07.2013 (Annexure P/6), is liable to be axed.