M/S. GAURI TRADERS Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Respondent State.

(2.) Petitioner has been blacklisted as per the communication bearing no. 709 dated 14.7.2014 (Annexure-23) in respect of the supplies to be made under the Jharkhand Construction Work Welfare Board. By the show cause at Annexure- 15 dated 27.5.2014 bearing no.717 issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ranchi, petitioner was asked to explain as to why his bills be not withheld; remaining supplies be not stopped and he be prohibited from participating in any future tender under the Department on failure to supply good of quality specification in the Garhwa Range relating to the Welfare Board. Petitioner submitted his response on 9.6.2014 (Annexure-14) which did not satisfy the Respondents. The impugned order accordingly stated that supplies in Garhwa District were inquired through the Committee comprising the Labour Enforcement Officer and BOC Clerk. The committee compared the supplies made with the samples submitted earlier and Assistant Labour Commissioner reported that they were of inferior quality. Petitioner was informed earlier through letter dated 24.6.2014 to make supplies as per required specification regarding which he again failed to make any communication. It was therefore found that supplies made in respect of the project for welfare of the labourers was completely in deviance with the quality specification. Accordingly, decision was taken to blacklist the petitioner in respect of any supply relating to future project under the Welfare Board.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner besides laying challenge to the impugned decision on merits has taken a legal point that the impugned decision blacklisting / debarring the petitioner from all future tenders under the Welfare Board of the Department for indefinite length of time is in teeth of the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) & others reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105 ( para 21 and 22 there of). It is submitted that the impugned notice did not even specify the quantum of punishment proposed to be inflicted apart from giving details of the allegations and the inquiry report to enable the petitioner to adequately respond to the charge. The show cause notice also did not conform to the mandatory ingredients as laid down in the case of Gorkha Security Services(supra) at Para 21 and 22 of the report. Therefore, petitioner continues to suffer for almost 3 years on account of the order of blacklisting operating against him. This has entailed adverse civil consequences in the matter of carrying on his business in exercise of its Fundamental Right guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India not only in respect of the Respondent Welfare Board but it acts as disqualification in other tenders also with other Instrumentality or agency for indefinite period of time. Petitioner has therefore sought interference under writ jurisdiction of this Court.