# M/s BCITS Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore v. Purvanchal Vidhyut Vitaran Nigarm Ltd., Varanasi & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 7 ILRA 102
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-26
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 15363 of 2022
- **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta, Dinesh Pathak
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-bcits-pvt-ltd-bangalore-v-purvanchal-vidhyut-vitaran-nigarm-ltd-varanasi-anr-48713
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Blacklisting of Door to Door
Meter Reading Contract -Issuance of
show cause notice - Opportunity of
hearing - Fairness - Earlier two time
notice were issued and after filing of
explanation the notices were dropped -
IIIrd
notice
was
issued
with
the
observation that the explanation of the
company was found unsatisfactory -
Validity
challenged
-
Held,
the
respondent-Corporation in the impugned
show cause notice has already expressed
its mind that the explanation offered is
unsatisfactory - Even if the petitioner
offers its explanation, it would be an
empty formality and a futile exercise -
Fairness demanded that the respondent
should have taken care to keep their mind
open to the issues while seeking the
explanation. The respondent-Corporation
having already held that the explanation
is not worthy of acceptance, it could not
be treated to be a show cause notice but a
decision already taken. (Para 7 and 8)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-

## Text

102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has also amended the provision of 1965 Act
on 28.03.2013 by Act No.13 of 13.

18. In view of the aforesaid,
submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner that election of the society should
be held from the stage it was disrupted by
issuing the impugned order, is highly
misconceived.

19. The writ petition is, thus, hereby
dismissed.
----------
(2022)07ILR A102
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

Writ C No. 15363 of 2022

M/s BCITS Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Purvanchal Vidhyut Vitaran Nigarm Ltd.,
Varanasi & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Prashant Chandra (Senior Adv.), Sri
Kartikeya Dubey, Sri Ujjwal Satsangi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Udit Chandra

A. Civil Law - Blacklisting of Door to Door
Meter Reading Contract -Issuance of
show cause notice - Opportunity of
hearing - Fairness - Earlier two time
notice were issued and after filing of
explanation the notices were dropped -
IIIrd
notice
was
issued
with
the
observation that the explanation of the
company was found unsatisfactory -
Validity
challenged
-
Held,
the
respondent-Corporation in the impugned
show cause notice has already expressed
its mind that the explanation offered is
unsatisfactory - Even if the petitioner
offers its explanation, it would be an
empty formality and a futile exercise -
Fairness demanded that the respondent
should have taken care to keep their mind
open to the issues while seeking the
explanation. The respondent-Corporation
having already held that the explanation
is not worthy of acceptance, it could not
be treated to be a show cause notice but a
decision already taken. (Para 7 and 8)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-
1. Siemens Ltd. Vs St. of Mah. & ors.; 2006 (13)
SCALE 297
2. ORYX Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. Vs U.O.I. & ors.;
2010 (13) SCC 427
(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar
Gupta, J.
&
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak, J.)

1. The short issue that arises for
consideration in the instant writ petition is
whether show cause notice issued to the
petitioner seeking explanation as to why it
should not be black listed and debarred
from entering into contracts for next two
years is a valid notice or not.

2. The petitioner-Company was given
contract of "Door to Door Meter Reading,
Bill Generation and Serving through
SBM/Mobile App/Other Suitable Means
with Downloading" by the respondentCorporation on 23.7.2018 for a period of
three years. Subsequently it was extended
for two months more. On 6.06.2020, the
petitioner was issued a notice threatening to
blacklist
it
on
account
of
alleged
irregularities on its part. It was replied by
the petitioner on 19.6.2020 and according
7 All. M/s BCITS Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Vs. Purvanchal Vidhyut Vitaran Nigarm Ltd., Varanasi &
 Anr.
103
to the case of the petitioner, the notice was
dropped, as no action was taken in
pursuance thereof. After about a year and a
half, another notice dated 13.8.2021 was
issued with the same/similar allegations. It
was replied by the petitioner company on
23.8.2021 but thereafter no further action
was taken. Yet another notice dated
18.8.2021 with the same allegations was
issued, again threatening the petitioner to
blacklist it. It was replied to by the
petitioner company on 30.10.2021. The
respondent-Corporation after considering
the explanation arrived at a definite finding
that
the
explanation
offered
is
unsatisfactory and the alleged irregularities
and breaches committed by the Company
has resulted in tarnishing the image of the
respondent-Corporation. Accordingly, the
petitioner company has been called upon to
show cause as to why it should not be black
listed/debarred for a period of two years.

3. On 25.5.2022, we passed the
following order:

"It is urged by Sri Prashant
Chandra, learned Senior Advocate, assisted
by Sri Kartikeya Dubey and Sri Ujjawal
Satsangi, that the impugned show cause
notice is illegal as it has been issued with
premeditation to debar and blacklist the
petitioner-firm for a period of two years,
inasmuch as, the respondents have already
disclosed their mind by recording finding to
the effect that the explanation submitted by
the petitioner-firm in response to earlier
notice, has not been found to be satisfactory.
In support of the said contention, learned
counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance
upon the judgment of Supreme Court in
Siemens Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and
Others, 2006 (13) SCALE 297 and ORYX
Fisheries Private Ltd. vs. Union of India and
Others, 2010 (13) SCC 427.

Sri Udit Chandra, learned counsel
for the respondent corporation, seeks time to
obtain instructions by tomorrow.

Accordingly,
the
matter
is
adjourned.

Put up as fresh tomorrow."

4. Sri Udit Chandra, learned counsel for
the respondent-Corporation, after seeking
instructions, states that he does not wish to
file any counter affidavit. He submitted that
the notice is strictly valid inasmuch as the
respondent-Corporation has only examined
the explanation offered by the petitionerCompany and having found the same to be
unsatisfactory, issued fresh notice for black
listing the petitioner firm.

5. In Siemens Ltd. vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others, 2006 (13)
SCALE 297 a challenge was made to a
show cause notice on the ground that if it
has been issued with pre-meditation then
issuing notice and seeking explanation
would not serve any purpose as the person
issuing notice had already made up its
mind. The contention was upheld. The
relevant observations made in this behalf in
Paragraphs No. 8, 9 and 10 are reproduced
below:

"8. Although ordinarily a writ
court may not exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition
questioning a notice to show cause unless
the same inter alia appears to have been
without jurisdiction as has been held by this
Court in some decisions including State of
Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Datt Sharma and
Anr.
MANU/SC/0711/1987:
[1987]
2SCR444, Special Director and Anr. v.
Mohd.
Ghulam
Ghouse
and
Anr,
MANU/SC/0025/2004: 2004(164) ELT141
(SC) and Union of India and another v.
Kunisetty
Satyanarayana
104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
MANU/SC/5137/2006: AIR2007SC906 but
the question herein has to be considered
from a different angle, viz, when a notice is
issued with pre-meditation, a writ petition
would be maintainable. In such an event,
even if the courts directs the statutory
authority to hear the matter afresh,
ordinarily such hearing would not yield any
fruitful purpose [See K.I. Shephard and
Ors.
v.
Union
of
India
and
Ors.
MANU/SC/0643/1987: (1988) ILLJ162SC
]. It is evident in the instant case that the
respondent has clearly made up its mind. It
explicitly said so both in the counter
affidavit as also in its purported show
cause.

9. The said principle has been
followed by this Court in V.C. Banaras
Hindu University and Ors. v. Shrikant
MANU/SC/8170/2006: AIR2006SC2304,
stating:

The Vice Chancellor appears to
have made up his mind to impose the
punishment of dismissal on the Respondent
herein. A post decisional hearing given by
the High Court was illusory in this case.

In K.I. Shephard and Ors. etc. etc.
v.
Union
of
India
and
Ors,
MANU/SC/0643/1987 (1988): ILLJ162SC,
this Court held:

...It is common experience that
once a decision has been taken, there is
tendency to uphold it and a representation
may not really yield any fruitful purpose.

[See also Shri Shekhar Ghosh v.
Union
of
India
and
Anr.
MANU/SC/8616/2006 : (2007)1SCC331
and Rajesh Kumar and Ors. v. D.C.I.T. and
Ors.
MANU/SC/4779/2006
:
]2871TR91(SC) ]

10. A bare perusal of the order
impugned before the High Court as also the
statements made before us in the counter
affidavit filed by the respondents, we are
satisfied that the statutory authority has
already applied its mind and has formed an
opinion as regards the liability or otherwise
of the appellant. If in passing the order the
respondent has already determined the
liability of the appellant and the only
question
which
remains
for
its
consideration is quantification thereof, the
same does not remain in the realm of a
show cause notice. The writ petition, in our
opinion, was maintainable."

6. Again in ORYX Fisheries Private
Ltd. vs. Union of India and Others, 2010
(13) SCC 427, the Supreme Court held as
follows:

"28. It is no doubt true that at the
stage of show cause, the person proceeded
against must be told the charges against
him so that he can take his defence and
prove his innocence. It is obvious that at
that stage the authority issuing the charge-
sheet, cannot, instead of telling him the
charges,
confront
him
with
definite
conclusions of his alleged guilt. If that is
done, as has been done in this instant case,
the entire proceeding initiated by the show
cause notice gets vitiated by unfairness and
bias and the subsequent proceeding become
an idle ceremony."

"32. Therefore, while issuing a
show-cause notice, the authorities must
take care to manifestly keep an open mind
as they are to act fairly in adjudging the
guilt or otherwise of the person proceeded
against and specially when he has the
power to take a punitive step against the
person after giving him a show cause
notice."

7. In the case at hand, the situation is
similar as the respondent-Corporation in
the impugned show cause notice has
already expressed its mind that the
explanation offered is unsatisfactory and
7 All. Awadhesh Narayan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
105
the petitioner-Company is guilty of the
charges levelled against it.

8. In the above backdrop, even if the
petitioner offers its explanation, it would be
an empty formality and a futile exercise.
Fairness demanded that the respondent
should have taken care to keep their mind
open to the issues while seeking the
explanation. The respondent-Corporation
having already held that the explanation is
not worthy of acceptance, it could not be
treated to be a show cause notice but a
decision already taken. We accordingly
quash the impugned notice leaving it open
to the respondent-Corporation to issue fresh
notice in accordance with law, if so
advised.

9. The petition stands allowed to the
extent indicated above.
----------
(2022)07ILR A105
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.12.2017

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ C No. 16026 of 2015

Awadhesh Narayan Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri J.P.N. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., S. Tiwari

A. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Writ of mandamus - Contract by a
statutory body - Scope of interference -
Non-payment of amount due in respect of
civil work performed by a contractor -
Maintainability of writ petition - Public
law and private law, how far relevance -
Held, the fact that one of the parties to
the agreement is a statutory or public
body will not by itself affect the principles
to be applied - The disputes about the
meaning of a covenant in a contract or its
enforceability have to be determined
according to the usual principles of the
Contract Act - Statutory bodies have
power to contract or deal with property
like private parties. Such activities may
not raise any issue of public law. When it
is not shown that contract is statutory and
parties are within the realm of their
authority, contract between the parties is
in the realm of private law - The disputes
relating to interpretation of terms and
conditions of such contract cannot be
agitated in a petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution. (Para 6)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-
1. F.C.I. & anr. Vs M/s Seil Ltd. & ors.; AIR 2008
SC 1101
2. M/s Chitra Gupta Trading Vs U.P. Public
Works Department & ors.; 2010(5) ADJ 299
(DB)
3. Writ Petition No. 41238 of 2013; M/s
Pratiksha Constructions Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
decided on 11.02.2015
4. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. & anr. Vs
Dolly Das; 1999 (4) SCC 450
5. Kerala State Electricity Board & anr. Vs Kurien
E. Kalathil & ors.; 2000 (6) SCC 293
6. Writ C No. 25075 of 2014; M/S Prabhu
Construction Comp.through its Proprietor Vs St.
of U.P. & anr. decided on 05.05.2014
7. Writ C No. 11544 of 2014; M/s R.S. Assc. Vs
St. of U.P. & ors. decided on 24.02.2014
8. Alaska Tech Vs St. of U.P.; 2014 (6) ADJ 591
9. Misc. Bench No. 10971 of 2015; M/S Goyal
Stationary Mart through its Proprietor State of
U.P. decided on 27.11.2015