GRAND ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which arises for consideration in this application is as to whether the impugned order dated 12.3.97 whereby and where under the petitioners have been black listed, is sustainable in law. The said order .......... thus :

(2.) It is clear that prior to passing of the order no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners. The records produced before this Court do not show that any notice has been issued to the petitioners nor an opportunity to explain the alleged misconduct had been given. It is a ..... law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s. Erusian Equipment Chemicals Limited. v. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 1975 SC at page-266 that the order of blacklisting without comploying with the principles of natural justice would be bad in law. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by the Supreme Court in the case reported in AIR 1981 SC at page-1481. In M/s. Southern Painters v. Fertilizer and Chemicals Travancore Limited, reported in AIR 1994 SC at page-1277, the Apex Court upon considering various decisions has held that before passing an order of blacklisting prior notice at opportunity of being heard is necessary. In S. L. Kapoor. v. Jogmohan and Others, reported in AIR 1981 at page-136, it has been held that non-grant of such opportunity itself would result in prejudice. The decisions relied upon by Mr. Mishra Learned Advocate for the state were rendered in different facts situation. In the case of The Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines and Another. v. Ramjee, reported in AIR 1977 S.C. at page-965, the Apex Court was dealing with the matter relating to holding of examination.

(3.) In K. L. Tripathi case (1984 S.C. at page-273), the Apex Court held that where a matter is admitted, a further opportunity of hearing need not be given but the same would depend upon fact of each case.