MOHAN LAL BISHNOI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Regarding an incident of manhandling Shri Laxmikant Suthar, Junior Engineer and Staff on duty on 13-10-98 during the afternoon hours and obstructing them from discharging their duties, the petitioner-contractor was blacklisted by the impugned order dated 21-12-98 at Annexure 6. Before passing that order the petitioner filed a civil suit and as application for interim injunction that he should not be black listed. During the pendency of the suit the petitioner was blacklisted by the aforesaid order. Initially the Civil Court kept the order of black listing the petitioner in abeyance and subsequently vacated the same. However, the order passed by the Court keeping the order in abeyance was continued till 9-4-99 with a view to enable the petitioner to approach the Court for obtaining appropriate order. Before this petition the petitioner had filed a revision petition No. 360/99 before this Court which was dismissed by my learned brother Mr. R. R. Yadav, J. on 7-4-99. Thereafter, this petition was moved.

(2.) In para 23 of this petition it has been stated by the petitioner that the petitioner has no other alternative remedy except by way of this writ petition before this Court. The same statement is absolutely false. The petitioner had better alternative and efficacious remedy by way of suit before the Civil Court. In fact, before passing of the impugned order of black listing the petitioner, the petitioner did file a suit on apprehension that he was likely to be blacklisted. It is a different matter that his injunction application was dismissed and later on this Court has also dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging the orders passed by the Court below. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner had no alternative and efficacious remedy. Thus, for making false and incorrect statement in para 23 of the petition this writ petition is required to be dismissed.

(3.) On merits also the petitioner has no case. The submission of Mr. Purohit, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that before passing the impugned order of blacklisting the petitioner, the petitioner was not personally heard. Hence, the impugned order is illegal and liable to be set aside. In support of his submission he relied upon a Supreme Court Judgement in the case of M/s. Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 1975 SC 266. I am afraid that this submission of Mr. Purohit cannot be accepted for the simple reason that, in that case admittedly an opportunity was not given to the petitioner. Whereas in this case, before passing the impugned order the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why he should not be blacklisted by the show cause notice dated 3-11-98 at Annexure 2. The petitioner filed a detailed written reply on 6-11-98 at Annexure 3 and tried to show cause. After considering the explanation offered by the petitioner in his reply the Chief Engineer was not satisfied with his reply, therefore, he passed the impugned order of blacklisting the petitioner.