# Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. and others - **Citation:** (2004) 1 ILRA 177 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2002-06-14 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40501 of 1998 - **Bench:** V.M. Sahai, Krishna Murari - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ashok-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40316 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Land Acquisition Act-Sections 11-A and 17-Applicability-By invoking urgency clause under S. 17(1) government takes possession of land- prior to making of award under S. 11 of L.A. Act- Thus owner is divested of land, vested with government- Hence s. 11-A, held, has no application to cases of acquisition under http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in ## Text 1 All] Ashok Kumar V. State of U.P. and others 177 time as he had not attained the age of 55 years on 17.3.1998 when he first applied for voluntary retirement on medical grounds and as such the impugned order rejecting the application on the ground of it being filed beyond the age of 55 years is liable to be quashed. The petitioner No. 1 is entitled to the benefit of the circular dated 3.7.1996 for appointment as handling labour on compassionate grounds in place of his father, petitioner No. 2. As such this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.6.2002 passed by respondent No. 2 is quashed and the respondents are directed to give appointment to petitioner No. 1 Shobh Nath, son of Jai Ram as Loader, forthwith without any delay. No order as to costs. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.03.2004 BEFORE THE HON'BLE V.M. SAHAI, J. THE HON'BLE KRISHNA MURARI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40501 of 1998 Ashok Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.P. Sahi Sri G.K. Singh Counsel for the Respondents: Sri R.P. Goyal Sri Manish Goyal S.C. Constitution of India Article 226Principle of Natural justice-Black listing the petitioner from approved list of contractor-without show cause noticewithout opportunity of hearing-heldPrinciple of Natural justice violatived order can not sustained. Held: Para 5 A show cause notice was required to be given to the person against whom the order for blacklisting is to be passed and in absence of such notice the order of blacklisting would be illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. Admittedly no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned orders. The argument of learned counsel for the respondents that the respondent would give post decisional hearing to the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down by the apex court. Case law discussed: AIR 1989 SC 620 AIR 1975 SC 266 2001 (8) SCC 620 (Delivered by Hon'ble V.M. Sahai, J.) 1. The petitioner is a registered contractor with Nagar Nigam, Aligarh. He took contract for construction of shops in the year 1981. After completion of constructions final payment was made to him in 1987. The State Government got vigilance enquiry conducted against the officers of Nagar Nigam, Aligarh and on the basis of ex-parte enquiry report directed Nagar Nigam, Aligarh on 5.9.1998 to blacklist the petitioner. In pursuance of this direction of the State Government, the Nagar Nigam passed an order on 6.10.1998 blacklisting the petitioner. Both the orders had been challenged in the instant writ petition. 2. We have heard Sri A.P. Sahi learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004 no.1 and Sri Manish Goyal learned counsel appearing for respondents no.2 and 3. 3. Sri A.P. Sahi learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that without issuing any show cause notice or giving opportunity of hearing, the petitioner could not be blacklisted. On the other hand Sri Manish Goyal learned counsel appearing for respondents no.2 and 3 has urged that post decisional hearing would be given to the petitioner and the impugned order is liable to be upheld. 4. The question involved in this petition is as to whether before blacklisting a contractor principles of natural justice have to be complied with and opportunity of hearing has to be given to him or not. This question has been settled by the apex court. It has been held in M/s. Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and another AIR 1975 SC 266, Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar and others AIR 1989 SC 620 and Grosons Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P. (2001) 8 SCC 604 that an order of blacklisting against a contractor results in civil consequences and in such situation the only requirement of law, in absence of statutory rules, was to observe principles of natural justice. 5. A show cause notice was required to be given to the person against whom the order for blacklisting is to be passed and in absence of such notice the order of blacklisting would be illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. Admittedly no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned orders. The argument of learned counsel for the respondents that the respondent would give post decisional hearing to the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down by the apex court. 6. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders dated 5.9.1998 and 6.10.1998, passed by the respondents, Annexures-1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition, are quashed. It shall be open to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The parties shall bear their own costs. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 5.3.2004 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE K.N. OJHA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27317 of 2001 Kaloo Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri R.K. Pandey Sri A.C. Srivastava Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Pradeep Kumar Sri Saumitra Singh S.C. Land Acquisition Act-Sections 11-A and 17-Applicability-By invoking urgency clause under S. 17(1) government takes possession of land- prior to making of award under S. 11 of L.A. Act- Thus owner is divested of land, vested with government- Hence s. 11-A, held, has no application to cases of acquisition under http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in