NAYAK CONSTRUCTION Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , a proprietorship firm, having status of "AA" Class Contractor with the Public Works Department (for short, 'PWD') has launched this legal battle against the order dt. 27th of November 2012 (Annex.6) passed by the second respondent, whereby it was blacklisted in terms of Appendix XVI Part II Section VIII of the Standard Code Para VIII.4 of the Public Works Financial and Accounts Rules. The facts, in brief, giving rise to this writ petition are that petitioner firm a "AA" Class contractor of PWD is involved in various construction works at District Dungarpur. The said status of "AA" Class contractor was conferred on the petitioner firm by the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Jaipur vide order dt. 31st of July 2009 (Annex.3). According to the version of the petitioner, fourth respondent while working as Executive Engineer, PWD, Dungarpur, with ulterior motive withheld some of the bills of the petitioner firm to extract illegal gratification for their clearance. With a view to struck a deal for clearance of bills, the fourth respondent invited the proprietor of the firm at his residence on 25th of October 2012. When the proprietor of the petitioner firm visited residence of fourth respondent, he refused to accede to the undue desire of the fourth respondent and thereupon a first information report was lodged by him against the petitioner for offences under Sec. 452, 307, 427/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. According to the petitioner firm, the entire edifice of the FIR was falsehood and in fact no offence was committed by the proprietor of the firm. An endeavor was made at its behest through proprietor to challenge the said FIR before this Court by way of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2763/12. In the criminal misc. petition, at the threshold, notices were issued and interim protection was granted. It so happened that the FIR lodged against the petitioner firm in the interregnum was taken cognizance, and when the matter was reported to the higher authorities, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner firm on 01.11.2012 (Annex.4) by the Chief Engineer and Addl. Secretary, PWD, Jaipur. Responding to the said notice, according to the petitioner firm, a detailed reply was submitted but without considering the reply the order Annex.6 was passed, which is impugned in the present petition. Assailing the action of the respondent, the petitioner has categorized the same as high -handed action in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

(2.) ON behalf of the official respondents, reply to the writ petition is submitted defending the impugned action. While questioning the work efficiency of the petitioner firm in execution of the contract works, the respondents have very specifically pleaded in the reply that petitioner firm has consistently, misbehaved with the officers of the department and for that purpose earlier also notices were issued to it. Adverting to the incident for which the impugned action was taken, the respondents have specifically pleaded in the reply that the bills of the petitioner were rightly withheld by the fourth respondent because of certain defects in maintenance work and when the petitioner firm was asked to get the work done, its proprietor instead of carrying the same, threatened fourth respondent and exerted undue pressure on him to clear bills. Highlighting his conduct of committing serious cognizable offence at the residence of fourth respondent, the respondents have submitted in the reply that the proprietor of the firm used fire arms. Insisting on the persistent misbehavior of the petitioner firm, the respondents have also placed on record complaint laid by a Lower Division Clerk of PWD Sub -Division, Sagwara, wherein he has averred threat perception from the petitioner firm to him and his family. Thus, in totality, the respondents have defended their action and have submitted in the reply that as the petitioner was guilty of misbehavior and despite giving show cause notice it has not submitted reply to the same, the competent authority had no option but to pass the impugned order.

(3.) THE petitioner firm has thereafter filed its rejoinder reiterating the stand which was emphasized in the main petition. Joining the issued with the respondents, the petitioner firm has averred that reply to show cause notice was submitted by it within stipulated time but the same was not considered while passing the impugned order. The petitioner firm has also alleged in the rejoinder that at no point of time its work efficiency was under cloud and it has performed all its contractual works with efficiency without any defects. Once again emphasizing that order impugned is highhanded action and in gross violation of principles of natural justice, the petitioner firm has craved for its annulment.